Larrymarx and allweneedislove's Global balance solution

Hi ANZAC.  For the HBG 1939 map, think of a 4x8 sheet of plywood.  Its is HUGE and awesome.  You need a big room for that size table plus room to walk around on all 4 sides.  I only played the 1939 game one time and I can say it is definitely superior in a hundred different ways, but playing it is an order of magnitude more complex than global 1940.  Global 1940 seems like the kiddie game next to it, which is nuts because global 1940 is not an easy game by any means.  I’d say your best bet is to get the global 1940 if only for the pieces, and then blow the extra money for the 1939 map and elite pieces if and when you and your crew outgrow it.  Another option is to play 1940 on this site with triplea.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.

Agree with techroll

Note that for #3, if the UK does not declare war on Japan the battleship could stay in the zone (would not be hostile), but if Japan has declared war on the US, there is almost no reason for the UK not to declare war on Japan…  So in 99% of cases I suppose the UK BB would need to move (if UK declared war on Japan since Japan DOW on USA)…

I like it the way it is . 1 on 1 is different than 3 on 3. I also think the table top is different than the computer screen.  The Axis had 2 wins this weekend and of the 17 games we’ve played with the ALPHA+2 rules and set up were still about 50/50.  The skill level is about even on our table

This is all there will be in the way of official errata for the box rules for a while.

Hmm….this victory condition seems to make winning even tougher for Axis.

In any case, thank you for the reply!

G5 is possible, but not with a G1 attack.

Japan can occupie russian terretories behind china in G4 and take 4 IPCs from the far east, without leaving too much planes in Japan/Mandschuria.

Sea Lion is not an option. Russia grows too big.

You are right! A combined attack on Russia is my favourite solution, too.

G5 or G6 for capturing Moskau is realistic.

We call this tactic “Panzerwalze”. :-D

Nice, lol.