I view the essays as para-historical entertainment from someone who contemplates the board waiting to find an opponent.
Welcome to the forum and try the game online. It’s much more interesting than writing and speculating about the game. :wink:
Global 1940 is the best Axis & Allies game
-
if you are sitting infront of your computer hoping to see some awesome kung fu videos you have come to the wrong place.
but if you are wishing someone would make a list of all the reasons why global 1940 is so much fun then keep reading.
1. more viable grand strategies for the axis = more variety in gameplay = more fun
the game is no longer only a race for berlin/moscow. axis can still win by gunning for moscow, but they now have 4 grand strategies to achieve victory;
go all in the pacific such as italy/germany throwing everything at india
go all in Europe such as japan throwing everything at egypt
go for a balanced approach on both maps
go for an economic victory(economy switch) where they out-produce the allies and eventually overwhelm them.2. even within a single grand strategy there are multiple real ways to achieve the goals. as one example germany�s strategy to take moscow has 4 real options;
blitzing moscow on turn 5(moscow blitz)
slow march to moscow on turn 7(artillery march)
mass bombing of ussr(dark skies)
economic collapse in 10 or more rounds(the great siege of moscow)3. greater variety of units to purchase. there are now 18 units to choose from.
4. better pricing of units. reducing the cost of naval and air units has led to a greater variety of units being purchased.
5. there is now an option to attack neutrals. this was in original but removed in all the more recent versions. there is a heavy price to pay for attacking a neutral so there is the fun decision of weighing the short term benefit vs the long term cost.
6. strategic bombing raids are a legitimate but not overpowering strategy. how complexes are damaged and repaired is excellent. there is now a bigger reward for bombing but still plenty of risk, and the defender can have a counter strategy by having interceptors.
7. good map design. there are many ways to get to the same key areas. the pacific is very dynamic.
8. facilities add a lot of strategy. the cost to benefit is great. having facilities helps drive action to otherwise less valuable territories.
9. national objectives add mini in game objectives that add strategy and can encourage play to areas of the map that otherwise would be ignored.
10. transports taken last as casualties now has more naval units being purchased and a greater variety in those purchases. earlier editions had the allies creating a super navy that was unsinkable. once this point was achieved the allies would rightfully stop building navy. the navies had a few loaded carriers defended by huge amounts of transports. now, how navies are built and deployed, involves many more decisions. there is much more naval action with many fleets being sunk.
11. politics and declarations of war(dow). depending on which round japan issues a dow, the game plays out very differently. there are benefits, different strategies, and different tactics for each different round that japan declares war. there is great game design in each round of dow having equal opportunity for victory.
12. setup. the starting setup allows for a variety of openings that leads to more diverse gameplay than earlier editions.
13. global 1942 scenario. the game has a whole new set of strategies to explore with the alternate start. http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf
14. most importantly the victory conditions as it drives all choices from purchases, to attacks to movements. the axis having 2 separate victory conditions adds many layers to the game.
all older games were won by economics and the axis had to overtake the allies(most easily achieved by taking moscow). although they had victory cities it was for a world total and to reach this total you had to being winning economically, so while it might seem that players were making a push for victory cities we were all actually just playing for an economic victory. in older editions after the either side reached their victory city conditions you could keep playing to total domination and the same side would win. the axis still have an option to go for an economic victory but it is not a necessity.
axis and allies finally has action spread across the whole world and not concentrated on the 2 territories of moscow and berlin. in all past world editions the game boiled down to the axis racing to moscow/berlin. having victory conditions that are truly based on cities means the game is no longer just an economic game. the basic premise of economically strong allies vs starting military strong axis can be accentuated.
the split victory conditions lead to the most fun aspect in this game(and probably all board games) were both sides have a chance at winning that comes to a head in a critical turn. the most fun games i have had is when the allies have an economic advantage and will win the game if it continues past the next round or two. but the axis have a chance at reaching the required number of victory cities. so all the planning, strategy, and rolling comes to a conclusion where one side has earned victory.
larger amounts of money involved overall. More units getting purchased = more fun.
more units means one bad early roll does not cost you the game. in older version, like classic, one bad roll early on could end the game. Now, there’s more chances to get better rolls later to average out bad rolls.
-Epic scale, the game feels more impressive partly because it is physically impressive.
battles all over the world including -A legitimate African theater
- It provides the largest number of player countries of any A&A game, all with their own distinct infantry sculpts, including the first and only appearance thus far of France.
-
Death’s Head 420 should check this out.
-
if you are sitting infront of your computer hoping to see some awesome kung fu videos you have come to the wrong place.
but if you are wishing someone would make a list of all the reasons why global 1940 is so much fun then keep reading.
1. more viable grand strategies for the axis = more variety in gameplay = more fun
the game is no longer only a race for berlin/moscow. axis can still win by gunning for moscow, but they now have 4 grand strategies to achieve victory;
go all in the pacific such as italy/germany throwing everything at india
go all in Europe such as japan throwing everything at egypt
go for a balanced approach on both maps
go for an economic victory(economy switch) where they out-produce the allies and eventually overwhelm them.You can do a lot of different strategies, not all are viable, but they are still options.
2. even within a single grand strategy there are multiple real ways to achieve the goals. as one example germany’s strategy to take moscow has 4 real options;
blitzing moscow on turn 5(moscow blitz)
slow march to moscow on turn 7(artillery march)
mass bombing of ussr(dark skies)
economic collapse in 10 or more rounds(the great siege of moscow)Awesome flexibility.
3. greater variety of units to purchase. there are now 18 units to choose from.
True Dat
4. better pricing of units. reducing the cost of naval and air units has led to a greater variety of units being purchased.
I still believe that some naval units still need to be cheaper in order to be cost effective(rarely a good reason to buy bbs/cruisers).
5. there is now an option to attack neutrals. this was in original but removed in all the more recent versions. there is a heavy price to pay for attacking a neutral so there is the fun decision of weighing the short term benefit vs the long term cost.
I like this one.
6. strategic bombing raids are a legitimate but not overpowering strategy. how complexes are damaged and repaired is excellent. there is now a bigger reward for bombing but still plenty of risk, and the defender can have a counter strategy by having interceptors.
Agreed
7. good map design. there are many ways to get to the same key areas. the pacific is very dynamic.
Agreed
8. facilities add a lot of strategy. the cost to benefit is great. having facilities helps drive action to otherwise less valuable territories.
Some people still don’t like the movement bonuses.
9. national objectives add mini in game objectives that add strategy and can encourage play to areas of the map that otherwise would be ignored.
I see only 2(maybe 3) areas that would of been ignored if it was not for objectives.
10. transports taken last as casualties now has more naval units being purchased and a greater variety in those purchases. earlier editions had the allies creating a super navy that was unsinkable. once this point was achieved the allies would rightfully stop building navy. the navies had a few loaded carriers defended by huge amounts of transports. now, how navies are built and deployed, involves many more decisions. there is much more naval action with many fleets being sunk.
This rule works well for me.
11. politics and declarations of war(dow). depending on which round japan issues a dow, the game plays out very differently. there are benefits, different strategies, and different tactics for each different round that japan declares war. there is great game design in each round of dow having equal opportunity for victory.
Complicated as hell for newbies.
12. setup. the starting setup allows for a variety of openings that leads to more diverse gameplay than earlier editions.
Agreed
13. global 1942 scenario. the game has a whole new set of strategies to explore with the alternate start. http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf
While interesting, the 1942 scenario does have some issues.
14. most importantly the victory conditions as it drives all choices from purchases, to attacks to movements. the axis having 2 separate victory conditions adds many layers to the game.
all older games were won by economics and the axis had to overtake the allies(most easily achieved by taking moscow). although they had victory cities it was for a world total and to reach this total you had to being winning economically, so while it might seem that players were making a push for victory cities we were all actually just playing for an economic victory. in older editions after the either side reached their victory city conditions you could keep playing to total domination and the same side would win. the axis still have an option to go for an economic victory but it is not a necessity.
axis and allies finally has action spread across the whole world and not concentrated on the 2 territories of moscow and berlin. in all past world editions the game boiled down to the axis racing to moscow/berlin. having victory conditions that are truly based on cities means the game is no longer just an economic game. the basic premise of economically strong allies vs starting military strong axis can be accentuated.
the split victory conditions lead to the most fun aspect in this game(and probably all board games) were both sides have a chance at winning that comes to a head in a critical turn. the most fun games i have had is when the allies have an economic advantage and will win the game if it continues past the next round or two. but the axis have a chance at reaching the required number of victory cities. so all the planning, strategy, and rolling comes to a conclusion where one side has earned victory.
Don’t need to respond to this one.
-
What about turn order?
-
thanks for all your responses ghr2
What about turn order?
i don’t know how the turn order made the game better. you should explain and add it to the list.
-
One of my favorite things about Global 1940 is the larger amounts of money involved overall. More units getting purchased = more fun.
Also, in older version, like classic, one bad roll early on could end the game. Now, there’s more chances to get better rolls later to average out bad rolls. -
This is a great topic!
I agree that all of the above reasons make this a truly great game and would like to add a few more.
-Combined arms make unit purchases and attacks more strategic and fun.
-Face to face games are an event and not just a thing you get together and do, you have hours and hours to hang out, talk shit, and get to know new and old friends.
-A legitimate African theater (many Europe side victories hinge on Cairo falling).
-Epic scale, after an hour of setting up the board take a few minutes and look, this game is a beast!
-Honest efforts to make the game better and more ballanced over the years, thanks Larry, Kreig and company! -
The epic size of this game alone makes it great! Unfortunately when the first editons came out I missed them. When second editon came out I bought one first edition Pac 40 when they dropped in price. I then bought two Europe and one Pacific second edition copies.
I have the 1999 and 2001 editions I had always wanted to combine the two and make a sort of “Frankenstein” version of Global. LOL!
Anyways, every edition of A&A has things that make it great but G40 is truely the ultimate version.
-
I then bought two Europe and one Pacific second edition copies. I have the 1999 and 2001 editions I had always wanted to combine the two and make a sort of “Frankenstein” version of Global. LOL!
Many years ago, I was looking up A&A variants on the Internet and I found a graphic for some kind of connector map that supposedly allowed the original Europe and Pacific games to be linked. I say “supposedly” because the map was rather bizarre and it didn’t look as if it would do the job properly. I think it basically just provided possible transition points to get from one map to the next rather than an actual bridge to link them side-by-side.
Anyway, I agree that Global 1940 is the top A&A game. In addition to the reasons already given:
-
It provides the largest number of player countries of any A&A game, all with their own distinct infantry sculpts, including the first and only appearance thus far of France.
-
It provides unit types (tac bombers and mec infantry) found in no other A&A game.
-
The 2nd edition of Global 1940 is the record-holder for equipment sculpt design diversity, notably in the case of ANZAC and Italy getting their own distinct designs for every unit and all countries getting proper AAA guns.
-
The board is the largest A&A map ever published.
-
The Europe and Pacific maps line up with each other when you set them side by side in the intended way, and they wrap around conceptually (though not physically, due to scale differences) when you go off the left and right edges of the combined board.
I mentioned that the 2nd edition beats the 1st in terms of sculpts, but as far as the maps go I prefer the one from the 1st edition. The 2nd edition map has an income-tracking chart across the top which, in my opinion, spoils its good looks, and in the 2nd edition of Pacific the Canadian roundels which were present in the 1st edition have been deleted. On the other hand, the 2nd edition rulebooks are an improvement, since both the Europe and Pacific rulebooks now include the Global rules and the unit identification chart (rather than just being in the Europe rulebook, which was the case in the 1st edition).
-
-
chocolatepancake, emptysuite, toblerone77, and cwomarc thanks for the great reasons that i missed.
i have edited my original post to include the ones i missed.
-
4. better pricing of units. reducing the cost of naval and air units has led to a greater variety of units being purchased.
I still believe that some naval units still need to be cheaper in order to be cost effective(rarely a good reason to buy bbs/cruisers).
i agree that both need to be fixed, i am going to create a thread similar to this one with all the things i think could be improved upon. but in general the pricing of the units is pretty good.
8. facilities add a lot of strategy. the cost to benefit is great. having facilities helps drive action to otherwise less valuable territories.
Some people still don’t like the movement bonuses.
why do they not like the facilities?
i think it adds plenty of additional strategy.9. national objectives add mini in game objectives that add strategy and can encourage play to areas of the map that otherwise would be ignored.
I see only 2(maybe 3) areas that would of been ignored if it was not for objectives.
there are many NO’s that are poor and i will post on another thread what i think can be improved. but in general the NO’s are fun.
all of the below objectives effect how me and my opponents play.� 5 IPCs if an Axis power controls Caucasus. Theme: Control of vital Soviet oil production.
� 5 IPCs if at least 1 German land unit is in Axis-controlled Egypt. Theme: Gateway to the Middle East oilfields (high
propaganda value).
� 5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled.
Theme: Access to iron ore and other strategic resources.
� 2 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia. Theme: Access to strategic oil
reserves.
� 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and
there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet
Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
� 3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls. Theme:
Propaganda value and spread of communism.
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes. Theme: Strategic resource centers.
� 5 IPCs if the United States controls Philippines. Theme: Center of American influence in Asia.
� 6 IPCs if the Burma Road is totally open. Allied powers must control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan for
this to occur. China is also permitted to purchase artillery (represented by U.S. pieces) if the Burma Road is open.
Theme: Chinese military supply line corridor.
� 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls all of its original territories in its European economy (see page 34). Theme:
Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.
� 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya. Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered
vital national objective.
� 5 IPCs if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean sea (sea zones 92 through 99). Theme:
Propaganda and strategic advantage.
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least 3 of the following territories: Gibraltar, Southern France, Greece, and Egypt.
Theme: Stated national objectives�Greater Roman Empire.
39
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and
Alexandria. Theme: Stated North African military objectives.
� 2 IPCs per territory if Italy controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia. Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.
� 5 IPCs if an Allied power controls Malaya and ANZAC controls all of its original territories. Theme: Malaya
considered strategic cornerstone to Far East British Empire.
� 5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the
Solomon Islands. Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter. -
I was referring specifically to potentially IGNORED areas.
-
Best version in my mind and then theres always something like Oztea’s 41 version I think you could do a 39 version if you wanted to
It also makes a good social club -
I agree that BBs and Cruisers (CA or CL? Which one do you use for Cruisers?) are rarely purchased, but look at how they were in the real war. Very few countries built battleships during the war, most people just used the ones they already had because they realized that they were way too expensive. Carriers, DDs and Subs were way more cost effective. Karl Donitz of the German Navy claimed that with the money spent on Bismarck and Tirpitz, Germany could have bought 1,000 U-Boats! That would have been a sure German victory since the behemoths did effectively nothing (except sink HMS Hood, of course) and the few subs they had were very successful. I agree it would be more fun with more battleships, but it’s not something I have a problem with because it’s historically accurate to only have a few on the board.
One thing I love about the fleets in this game is how their presence affects people even if you never use the ships in combat. It becomes a huge chess match, involving many turns of building up and setting up your fleets, and if both sides are doing it well, it often takes a long time to have a confrontation because they are so even, nobody wants to risk it. It makes the climactic battle much more exciting!
-
Something I love about this game is the representation of the American economy. The rest of the AA variants (old Pac excluded), US makes a bit more than Germany! Global finally reflects the impact we had on the war.
-
You are right. In so many games they are soon overtaken economically by both Germany and Japan, which is silly.
I do wish the pre war income was less and the at war bonus was larger though. -
@wittmann:
You are right. In so many games they are soon overtaken economically by both Germany and Japan, which is silly.
Particularly in 1914. An income of 20? For most of the game?
-
Hey guys,
I love G40 as much as the next guy, but I do have a couple of problems with it…
1. Time, it takes up to 6 hours to play the game, realistically, and that can be hard to crank out in an day.
2. Players, it it great to play G40 with more players (and it’s pretty sweet to have them) but trying to convince 5 guys to play one game for a whole afternoon isn’t easy.
3. Money, in G40 there is so much money poured into each economy that one power rarely can’t replace their losses. This leads to games that can go up to 20 turns! Don’t get me wrong I like the things you can do in G40 but it seems to get ridiculous.I do like Global, and I think it is th best game, but in terms of playing, I like the shorter ones, but just my 2 cents…
Thanks, -
“Time, it takes up to 6 hours to play the game,”
You play fast.
-
Suggested Topics
