So far all 4 global games I’ve played the Axis have won :-o. Anyone else coming across this?
Allies are hard to play effectively. You need to do enough to hold on to Moscow without stripping every other front of troops. While also maintaining the Soviet income at a reasonable level. Hanging on to Moscow itself is a pretty significant challenge.
Axis win almost always - which is why users of this forum use a technique called “bidding” to even the game up. Each side bid to be allies: “I will be allies for 40 ipcs” that bid declining until the other side says “okay then - you can be allies”.
A typical bid to win the allies might be 20-30 ipcs or thereabouts. These are then placed on the board. Usual rules being not more than 1 unit in any territory or sea zone plus only in territories or sea zones already containing units.
Edited: Whoops! My first reply thought this was on the 1942.2 board, so now changed to 40G bid levels.
Allies win about 60% of the time but we play with the house rule of the US getting 30 IPC’s is the only national objective used. I think it makes the game more historically accurate.
If you’re a relatively new online player wanting to know how Allies can win, look me up and we can play a game @ no bid.
Offer not open to more experienced players, who I am unlikely to beat with no bid.
Thanks for the offer but I don’t play online, I believe you would beat me though!
there’s no faster way to improve your game than to play online
America is overpowered. Axis almost always loose unless the Allies make a blunder (leave Hawaii open, forget to move, etc.). The game is much more forgiving for the Allies. Once America is at the war, the nearly 80 income per turn is unbeatable.
German cannot attack Russia, hold Norway, take out the British fleet (if they don’t sink it even worse), help Italy and potentially defend Normandy, Denmark, Belgium, etc from constant American/British landings (have to hold units in Europe vs Russian front).
The Japanese cannot take out China (whole game effort), take India and/or the islands, prevent ANZAC from building navy or re-enforcing Java, potentially defend against Russia in Manchuria/Korea, defend against convoy robbing, take Philippines.
Once America is in, it can wreak havoc in both maps or totally dominate in one.
If anything, the Axis need a bid. This is based on probably 20+ games, 2-player.
Agree with Sjelso. We have mastered the Allies so well Axis has not won a game in about 15 tries. This over 1.5 years of game play from Jan 2017 to now.
Used to be Axis win every time.
Then the nasty “USA kill em all” strategy began to develop. We aren’t experts but not novice either. We got the game in 2012 (2nd ed.) and also played the other versions since 1992.
In my table top group the Allies have won 7 out of 9 matches in the last year.
Now, that being said. Our entire group was new to 1940 and had no knowledge of 1940 tactics and plans. Sure, we all played classic A&A but had never played a version of the game like 1940.
Reading the threads and watching videos online of 1940 it seems that the tactics of the Axis was the first to be explored and hammered out….this caused a period of anarchy and chaos and then Allied plans and so forth where hashed out and now there seems to be a balance. When played between two experienced players who know of these tactics and plans.
Which in turn has now reduced 1940 to a game that if the Axis have not won by the end of turn 8 or 9 just pick up the game and play some Cattan or Risk. My game of choice to default to is Euro Rails or Iron Dragon but that is just me.
That is why I support rules that add more chaos to 1940 instead of restricting it. Iam talking mainly about Tech rolls. Does it add chaos, yes. Does it change tactics, yes. Is it based purely on luck…well, maybe…but it changes up the game and thus it changes the replay ability of the game. Guys who hate tech do not want to move off the current meta of boredom and outcomes that are very static right now, ala the if the Axis have not won by turn 9 reset the board.
I fully support rules that allow tech tokens. I like my optional rule of reroll counters for attacks and so forth.
** Foot note **
It seems most players online over at Triple A do not like Tech and optional stuff…maybe some bids but that is it. My experience on Triple A of playing the Allies is that I have won the last 4 times playing allies with a 15-20 bid which I put all of that on the Pacific map in China and Russia. You shut down Japan in Turn 1-3 or slow them down…Allies have a much better chance to win the game.
1940 Global is unbalance because of Japan…Most Global Axis victories come on the Pacific map.
It is easy to recognize people with limited G40 experience based on how they respond to this question. Early-game lack of strategy by the Axis is very damaging because of the initial economic imbalance, and hence more damaging to neophytes compared to when they play the Allies. If Germany and Japan grow too slowly, they will inevitably be crushed. Also, if they spread their focus into too many gameplans, forces get too thin and none of the efforts will succeed. Allies don’t have as much of an issue with this.
The data from lots of League games suggest that an Allies +40 bid is now necessary to balance the game. That doesn’t mean that Allies have no chance: a bad first round for Germany alone could result in a -40 outcome compared to expectations. A bunch of planes could crash and burn going after the UK fleets, or a bunch of fast movers could be blown up in the Paris attack. It doesn’t take too many tanks or planes to reach a 40 TUV swing. I have had such horrible dice rolls that I gave up after G4. Almost all of my air force was gone despite being relatively conservative in attacks. Issues tend to compound themselves, making bad luck turn into horrible luck.
Yeah i want in on that “Allies win all the time” thing. We are trying to win with ygh rules and even that is difficult with a very aggressive axis player. g1 British fleet destroyed combined with a j1 but the allies far behind, especially if Germany takes that cruiser out in sz91 and prevents a complete Italy meltdown.
Agree with Sjelso. We have mastered the Allies so well Axis has not won a game in about 15 tries. This over 1.5 years of game play from Jan 2017 to now.
Used to be Axis win every time.
Then the nasty “USA kill em all” strategy began to develop. We aren’t experts but not novice either. We got the game in 2012 (2nd ed.) and also played the other versions since 1992.
So you said you mastered the game.
May i ask, did you play different peoples or allways the same?
Was it the same groupe or different ones?
We have gone back and forth on this for years, but ABH’s records and point of view are persuasive.
As player skill increases, the Axis advantage is preserved, because the Axis are harder to manage and plan but easier to win with
Certain evolved exploits in the game such as strategic bombing and turn order exploitation cause Russia to collapse but if you try to make Russia stronger, Germany has little choice about what to do or how to do it
There is a ton of variety in the game, but only one critical path
The USA can demolish Japan, but not Germany
The Allies have no rational victory condition, but the Axis have many
The Allies have only one way to attempt that victory (destroy Germany or Japan) while the Axis can focus on VC after VC and win on either board without destroying the Allies in detail
Taking an Axis capital is a victory condition, but Rome doesn’t matter and Berlin and Tokyo are unassailable
Once India or Moscow fall, the writing is on the wall and the Allies have to do something game changing in order to stop a cascade of events that lead to a loss (all 3 axis taking Iraq Persia and Egypt)
That does not mean the game is broken, because you can
bid
play balanced mod which addresses some of these
add your own mods or house rules
distribute new/veteran players onto different teams
play a variety of opponents
play different games besides just Global so you don’t beat a dead horse
176 games of AxA played since 2014
Only way Allies win ever with no bid is if you turn NOs off. Otherwise it’s an Axis stomp basically every time.
And this is coming from a guy who barely plays G40 competitively.
If the Japanese don’t attack before 3 turns to keep the Americans out, then they cannot take the islands, India, etc. They are relegated to the Chinese endless whack-a-mole scenario that just burns up ground forces and does not really gain much IPC$ or ground. If they attack before turn 3 then they unleash 72+ IPCS while they are at 40ish? The Japanese can’t really build any airbases or ports early on…cannot afford it.
The Germans can’t do Sea Lion or much of anything, fend off the Russians, help the Italians, etc. One game I convoy robbed USA with constant subs but once learned that is easily defeated.
I think we are pretty experienced gamers. Played just about every Avalon Hill wargame there was when younger (more complicated than A&A), played original A&A, etc., 1942, now this. Person I play with is WW2 junkie, had a museum, can tell you what happened at every battle, knows the different piping on uniforms…you name it.
We both struggle as Axis…just don’t see it. American IPC is too much.
I guess the word “mastered” was not the correct choice. I should say the US strategy has gotten very “surgical”, which implies continued practice.
It was a mixed group of about 6 guys. Continually changing factions each time the game was played. At first, Germany was unstoppable every game. Then, Japan was a behemoth.
This was likely due to inexperience for all involved. As the Allied strategy developed, it went from massive US bombing campaigns on Germany to all out submarine convoy death to what it is now.
Its basically morphed into a Japanese assault from all sides, with UK DOW on turn 2 usually. This pre-empts some of the usual Japanese gains as Yunan becomes a fortress.
Most of our players wait until Japan is out of position and then slam with USSR forces into Manchuria and Korea. This disruption is usually enough for the Japan player to panic. Then the US brings the hurt with a massive bomber buy. This is followed by a massive sub buy and Japan is usually neutered. Not overrun, neutered. We all know what that means.
Then Germany gets a taste.
This is usually predicated by the big Bryansk standoff.
Obviously we made some house rules to vary the game. I’ve posted here before. This creates less linearity for our play group and offers one time and continuous advantages for each faction. It also offers some disadvantages as well. Some very devastating, but not too out of the realm of reality.
Mostly Allied wins at this point. Usually an Axis win is from some achieved technology or a really great opener. Maybe we aren’t as skilled as some of the others here, but, win or lose, we have a great time and have never run out of beer. So win win for us!
If you run out of beer, that is far worse and more ignominious than than unconditional, total surrender.
If you run out of beer, that is far worse and more ignominious than than unconditional, total surrender.
Naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison, if I’m not mistaken, once wrote that the United States Navy could probably win a war without coffee if it had to do so, but that it would really prefer not to have to try this.
Thank you for clarifying it.
