We played a game a little while back where the turn order was changed due to an idea from someone here on the forum. It is very close to your idea Wild Bill. It goes like this:
Euro Axis (Germany/Italy)
Russia
Japan
Western Allies (UK, USA, ANZAC, France, China)
I think the setup was tweaked a little, but the main thing besides the different order was that in the case of the Euro Axis and Western Allies, while the individual nations had to buy their own units, they could all move and attack together as one. Also, how territory IPC values were rewarded was changed. Territories in certain areas were given to certain powers no matter what composition of the attacking forces were.
In the case of the Euro Axis, All territories in Africa were awarded to Italy while all other gains were awarded to Germany. So, say a force totally made up of Italian units took over a territory in Russia, it would be awarded to Germany. If a totally German force took over Egypt, it would still go to Italy. I can’t remember about Middle East territories, but everything else outside of Africa went to Germany.
The Western Allies were even more complicated so I won’t get into all of that here. Oh yeah, the UK and ANZAC were actually divided up into UK and Commonwealth. The Commonwealth was ANZAC, Canada and South Africa. All the rest was simply UK (No more UK Pacific).
One of the main differences was immense benefit to Italy. They were able to trash the UK Med fleet and take Egypt round 1. From then on, there was really no stopping Italy in the Med, especially since German aircraft could come down and support them at the same time.
Crush Northern Italy! Would hit a heavy blow. IMO
Northern Italy + either 96 or non-com to 91
I really appreciate all the input. I also noticed the bonus IC’s countries get for objectives. Such as Italy getting IC for control of the Mediterranean. In general do these bonus create large amounts of money going around? I remember in the original A&A money was sometimes tight. So aside from the smaller nations, do larger ones such as Germany get huge amounts of money for a ton of units? Or is it not as bad as I am thinking? I will be playing for the first time in 3 days, and to be honest I am not liking the country money bonuses. -Leon
I don’t think the NOs really help the big Axis nations (Germany and Japan) until they are really close to victory already.
Take Germany’s NOs:
$5 if Germany controls Norway and Denmark and Sweeden is not Pro-Allied or Allied controlled.
$5 for German control of Leningrad
$5 for German control of Stalingrad
$5 for German control of Moscow
$5 for Axis control of the Caucasus
$5 for at least 1 German land unit in Axis controlled Egypt
$2 each for German control of Iraq, Persia and NW Persia
Now, the first NO (Sweeden) Germany will get for most of the game, especially if they are winning. The Allies could take Norway to prevent this NO, and while that in itself doesn’t necessarily mean a lost game for Germany, it usually means things are going rough for them.
The NO for 1 land unit in Egypt would mean that either Italy or Germany is doing well in the Med and UK is doing poorly. Loss of Egypt doesn’t mean game lost for UK, but it certainly puts them in a bad place.
When Germany invades Russia, they will often get Leningrad in 2-3 rounds and that extra $5 can boost production for Germany, but not to an outrageous extent when you consider they have to maintain an offensive in Russia while holding off the Western Allies and maybe aiding Italy all at the same time.
As for the other NOs in Russia and the Middle East, if Germany gets that far, that usually means Russia has been taken out of the game or is very close to it and Germany is very strong already. By this time, the extra cash from the NOs are almost superfluous because Germany is close to winning.
However, I have seen games where Germany takes Russia out, but the Western Allies end up beating Germany, so even with those new NOs it is not necessarily a game winner for Germany.
Japan’s NOs are pretty much the same. They get $5 for control of all four DEI islands but they have to commit a good amount of resources to do that, which could leave them vulnerable back home if the US goes strong in the Pacific.
The 5 island NO is next to impossible for Japan to achieve and maintain unless they just totally rule the Pacific.
Japan’s other NOs are Calcutta, Sydney, Honolulu and San Francisco. They have to get two of these to win the game. Calcutta is usually doable for Japan. Sydney and Honolulu is harder and Japan has to concentrate on one or the other. Assuming they keep Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila and Calcutta, then manage to get Sydney or Honolulu and hold all of these for a full round, they win the game so the extra $5 doesn’t mean so much. If Japan manages to take San Francisco, let’s face it, they have pretty much won the game anyway.
Where NOs really help are the small countries like Italy and ANZAC. For one thing, they start with such small incomes, they really need that NO money to be able to do anything worth while in the game. I think that is why their NOs are relatively easier to accomplish (at least when compared to some of Germany’s and Japan’s NOs).
Italy:
$5 for no Allied surface warships in the Med (sea zones 92-99) –— fairly easy
$5 for Axis control of 3 of the following: Gibraltar, Southern France, Greece and/or Egypt ---- harder but doable. Since it is Axis control, Germany can help with this.
$5 for Axis control of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk and Alexandria ---- Fairly hard but can be helped by Germany.
$2 each for Italian control of Iraq, Persia and NW Persia ---- Pretty hard, but if accomplished Axis might be winning.
ANZAC:
$5 for Allied control of Malaya and all original ANZAC territories — VERY easy, until Japan takes Malaya in which case the Allies have bigger problems to worry about.
$5 for Allied control (not Dutch) of Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands — Easy and unlikely to be disrupted. Again, if Japan does disrupt this NO, Allies have bigger problems to worry about.
So you see, while the NOs do provide small boosts to the income of the larger nations, they are really needed by the little nations. However, if you really don’t like them, you can always play the game without NOs. A lot of people do that. I think most of the game will pretty much balance out, but don’t expect too much from Italy or ANZAC. I think overall playing with no NOs would benefit the Axis. The US gets an extra 20-25 IPCs upon entering the war. That will make a big difference in what they can do against the Axis.
Thanks for putting everything into perspective for me. You have changed my mind and I am willing to give NO’s a try for sure :-D Do you happen to know if anyone has ever made any for France? On the off chance they are alive? -Leon
I house ruled an extra NO for France.
$5 for any European Axis territory under French control.
This could happen if the Axis fail to take Paris and France is allowed to build and possibly attack. Also, if the US/UK land in Europe and liberate Paris, thus allowing France to purchase units once again. Granted, it is unlikely to happen, but I wanted them to have something.
Simple rule for beginners: Attack France with no less than 7 Inf, 3 Art, 4 Mech and 6 tanks. The end:)
That is all right if you don’t want Normandy or S. France. As Germany, I like to get those two as well. With Normandy, well, it just seems like taking France without Normandy seems somehow incomplete to me. As for S. France, I like having the minor IC in the Med so I can send U-Boats to help out the Italians, maybe even a transport and some troops to take a couple of the N. Africa territories to help Italy get the North Africa NO or take Gibraltar if UK doesn’t have it well guarded.
Sure, it lessens the force going after France some, but I might send the Stuka from Poland and fighter from Slovakia to assist.
That is all right if you don’t want Normandy or S. France. As Germany, I like to get those two as well. With Normandy, well, it just seems like taking France without Normandy seems somehow incomplete to me. As for S. France, I like having the minor IC in the Med so I can send U-Boats to help out the Italians, maybe even a transport and some troops to take a couple of the N. Africa territories to help Italy get the North Africa NO or take Gibraltar if UK doesn’t have it well guarded.
Sure, it lessens the force going after France some, but I might send the Stuka from Poland and fighter from Slovakia to assist.
I assume you might pull planes off of 111/110 in order to have decent odds on Normandy and South France, right?
That is all right if you don’t want Normandy or S. France. As Germany, I like to get those two as well. With Normandy, well, it just seems like taking France without Normandy seems somehow incomplete to me. As for S. France, I like having the minor IC in the Med so I can send U-Boats to help out the Italians, maybe even a transport and some troops to take a couple of the N. Africa territories to help Italy get the North Africa NO or take Gibraltar if UK doesn’t have it well guarded.
Sure, it lessens the force going after France some, but I might send the Stuka from Poland and fighter from Slovakia to assist.
Isn’t taking Normandy a pretty serious disadvantage for the Axis, since that allows the UK or the USA to land and make use f the factory there? I often leave it untaken for that reason.
@Shin:
That is all right if you don’t want Normandy or S. France. As Germany, I like to get those two as well. With Normandy, well, it just seems like taking France without Normandy seems somehow incomplete to me. As for S. France, I like having the minor IC in the Med so I can send U-Boats to help out the Italians, maybe even a transport and some troops to take a couple of the N. Africa territories to help Italy get the North Africa NO or take Gibraltar if UK doesn’t have it well guarded.
Sure, it lessens the force going after France some, but I might send the Stuka from Poland and fighter from Slovakia to assist.Isn’t taking Normandy a pretty serious disadvantage for the Axis, since that allows the UK or the USA to land and make use f the factory there? I often leave it untaken for that reason.
But, that allows usa to land planes on it and make it harder for Germany to counter it.
Simple rule 2: Don’t be too greedy G1!;) You can take Normandy and SF G2!
In my opinion - take it as you want - France’s job in this game is to throw randomness in what Germany has for units starting in Round 2. Bad dice? Good dice? These give the game some randomness.
And yes, Italy will kill off France if Germany doesn’t.
Kinda curious if you could orchestrate it so that France lives so Italy can take it with the treasury and thus give them significantly more money to use round 2 for the Med?
Have seen a couple games where the Germans try to do to much G1, and went a little light on Paris. With normal dice it wouldn’t have been a problem, but …… So by default (d fault of bad German dice), Paris stood, but the Italians were licking their chops and took it on their turn gaining the loot. It makes for an interesting game when Italy has some income from the get go.
We have actually had Germany strafe Paris after that leaving Paris for the Italians. You do need to be careful not to leave too much though, because the allies can make it challenging for Italy to finish the job.
idealy you leave them with just a fighter, yes. But if you can reduce them to 3 units or less, may it actually be better for Italy to get it? Let Germany clear out Taranto, then start rebuilding the Italian fleet with what, like 27-30 IPC for round 2?
I assume you might pull planes off of 111/110 in order to have decent odds on Normandy and South France, right?
No. Usually I send 1 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank to Normandy. 1 tank and 2 mechs to S. France. USUALLY, that is enough and I get both territories (except for that last game when my dice decided to SUCK horribly).
@Shin:
Isn’t taking Normandy a pretty serious disadvantage for the Axis, since that allows the UK or the USA to land and make use f the factory there? I often leave it untaken for that reason.
As Germany, I use the French factory to build infantry there. UK rarely has the transport ability to invade and by the time the US gets there, I can have 9-12 men there. Also, I try to keep a few men in Paris plus a few tanks in W Germany for a good counter attack.
@Cmdr:
idealy you leave them with just a fighter, yes. But if you can reduce them to 3 units or less, may it actually be better for Italy to get it? Let Germany clear out Taranto, then start rebuilding the Italian fleet with what, like 27-30 IPC for round 2?
What if UK sends fighters to defend Paris? Italy could have some real trouble then. That happened in one game a while back. Germany failed to take Paris G1. UK flew fighters in and Italy simply wasn’t strong enough to kill the left over French and UK fighters. That’s why it took until Italy 2 before Paris finally fell.
By the way, I know what you are thinking. If UK sends fighters to Paris, they aren’t defending London from Sealion. Well, if Germany gets wiped out trying to take Paris, they can buy transports but they won’t have land units to put in them. Most of Germany’s land units that didn’t die in Paris are over on the Eastern Front. So, Sealion is really a no-go so the UK can afford to send fighters to Paris. Depending on how many they send, this might save the Italian fleet from a Taranto raid.
So just an update to my game status. We only got up until china’s turn then everyone wanted to quit. Unfortunately we did not get to play much at all so kinda bummed me out. With that I cannot report how balanced I feel the game was. Hopefully get to play sometime again. -Leon
So just an update to my game status. We only got up until china’s turn then everyone wanted to quit. Unfortunately we did not get to play much at all so kinda bummed me out. With that I cannot report how balanced I feel the game was. Hopefully get to play sometime again. -Leon
So is this just a pause and you’re going to continue the game at another time, or is it over.
I know that this game can be overwhelming the first couple times you play it. Don’t know how many people you had in your group, or their experience level (we played the Anniversary game a bunch). The first few times we played global40 we only did 1-3 rounds. You will make many mistakes until you get the feel for it. This game is very intense, time consuming, and not for everyone. I would suggest playing with a smaller group possibly to gain experience over a couple games, then bring in more players.
You could also try the 1942 tournament version that uses the same map and rules. It is a 1942 set-up so all powers start at war. This time line removes many of the political rules from the game, an it might keep more interest when all parties can participate fully from the beginning.
I will try to post a link later for Global1942
I assume you might pull planes off of 111/110 in order to have decent odds on Normandy and South France, right?
No. Usually I send 1 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank to Normandy. 1 tank and 2 mechs to S. France. USUALLY, that is enough and I get both territories (except for that last game when my dice decided to SUCK horribly).
That leaves a very weak attack on france itself.
I assume you might pull planes off of 111/110 in order to have decent odds on Normandy and South France, right?
No. Usually I send 1 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank to Normandy. 1 tank and 2 mechs to S. France. USUALLY, that is enough and I get both territories (except for that last game when my dice decided to SUCK horribly).
That leaves a very weak attack on france itself.
Yeah, I know it’s taking a chance. The fighter from Slovakia and Stuka from Poland do help take up some of the slack, but it’s still a bit risky. Especially if France’s AA gun gets lucky. I have almost always won that battle, with varying degrees of success. Sometimes the dice go bad and I am lucky to win with a couple of tanks and the planes surviving. Other times the dice go good and I still even have infantry left. I consider it a good win if I survive with all my tanks plus any aircraft.
