Question: Are you attacking Paris and Yugoslavia because you have too, or because it is convenient?
Thought: I am asking because I wonder if you need attack either place on round 1. Yes, it means France will buy 19 IPC worth of gear and collect 19 IPC (presumably if Italy does not attack either) and you are already yielding England the fighter in Normandy. However, would that 19 IPC actually hurt Germany in the long run? Would the damage caused by not taking Paris on round 1 be offset by the greater punch Germany would have on Round 2?
If Paris is not taken, then Germany doesn’t have the $ to buy the 9 TTs. Buy round 4, there will be too much in UK to make Sealion feasable.
It has to be round 3, and that means France must go on turn 1.
Only 2 games of global played thus far, both were axis wins. America splitting its production makes it useless in terms of amassing threat on either side.
I usually take London on turn 4 with 25+ units surviving. Dropping 5 units and an AA gun on Scotland turn 2. 18 more units on Scotland turn 3, and 18 more units on London for a total of 41 land units plus an air force that may be missing 2 planes from a scramble in S. Italy turn 1. London usually has like 35 units, which is 12-14 hits round 1. UK battle is typically 2-3 combat rounds.
I let Russia enter Germany for two turns, as they can’t spend the money anywhere close to the front. With the 13 IPCs from Scotland/London/National Objective it is easy to build 3 ships a turn and land units to drive Russia back.
Germany (66-73IPCs) with London almost outproduces Russia (37)and half of US production (39), then you have Italy (25-45IPCs)that also helps in Europe.
Japan (64-68IPCs) with DEI and China outproduces India (7 IPCs) Anzac (3-6IPCs) and America (38 IPCs).
The problem America has, is that it has to build two fleets to overcome large Japanese and German fleets in our games. Gibraltar is a no go zone for the US as Germany usually has 1-2 carriers, 4-5 subs, 1 DD, 1 BB and CA and 9 air units parked off London. It has been focusing on Japan early and Europe later, maybe it can focus on Europe first, but Japan is able to get 6 cities going Anzac first when Germany goes London first.
Japan’s starting land units in Asia, (31 land units I think) is enough to beat China down and withdraw to the mainland victory cities after turn 5, which permits Japan to spend its first 4 builds securing Anzac and Hawaii by turn 7 for the win unless the U.S. ignores Europe early.
I’m not counting my 3rd game of global in which the axis won, when an inexperienced America put his whole fleet on Hawaii turn 1, he thought I wouldn’t declare war on the US J2(whole Jap fleet plus 2 built subs), but when I did, I smashed the starting fleet hitting 12 times (he had 12 pieces since he did not scramble the 3 air units on Hawaii as I landed 10 land units vs 4 land and 3 air units. It was a coin toss that I won with 2 artillery and 1 armor left). Not only did I hit 12 times, he hit me 5/12 which was 2 hits on BB’s and 3 air units. I then convoyed US for 14 (sub off alaska) and sent rest of fleet to smash Anzac’s NO’s by seizing New Britain (carrier, 2 DD, BB,3 transports). Japan’s first turn build, 2 Transports, 2 Subs. I chose air units for casualties at Pearl Harbor, since I had 4 air in reserve to land on carriers during the non combat phase. I was saving forward deployed subs for the planned blockade of W. US. (the net result is that I convoy raided to the point that he effectively got 1 IPC for National Objectives for a Production of 52 IPCs while he had the Philippines, which would be 7 less IPCs in later rounds) He surrendered when his fleet (3 turns of building) sailed to the Pacific and the German armada moved to invasion position of E. US. later in the game. Japan smashed China and had India at 21 IPCs by turn 3. Could this game have been prevented, yes…a DD in sz 16 or 25 turn 1 or a sub off Philippines and Kwangtung to prevent their turn 3 capture. Also 12 hits at pearl was a joke, 3/8 2’s hit, 4/5 3’s hit, and 5/5 4’s hit for 12 hits total from 18 units. Average would have been closer to 7-9 hits. I planned on removing a carrier plus 1 more plane and 2 DD’s if I has lost the expected 5 more units I planned on if the US had had a second combat round + scrambled.
I think the Balance is really good.
What does your G4 Sea Lion look like?
How many transports?
How many planes?
England can muster ALOT of support in that amount of time…
i just take uk round 3 or R4 with Sealion.
not taking down uk is like really bad for germany. the game is based on germany gettng uk.
Shuffle guys R2 to a spot near uk. Shuffle guys R3 to same spot. Hit UK R4 with overwhelming odds. UK done.
it seems 90pct of games here are Sealion games. If Sealion is the optimal course of action, that is a problem for me. Are you guys forcing Sealion or is the UK player making poor decisions to invite it?
Are the Axis winning half the time even after a failed Sealion? That is a BIG problem IMO.
One thing I have found to be a problem in my experience is the colapse of Russia from the east. Japan needs to keep a pile of infantry in Manchuria anyways, so why not just DOW on Russia? They can be in Timguska by round 6 without sending anything but the units they start with in Manchu and Korea. (and the tank in Jap) I would like to see the 12ipc’s be placed on the board immediately like the Paris Rule with French units. Would be a better deterent.
Sorry to dissapoint you Cow, but tactical bombers can only be used on air & naval bases, not on IC’s. So bombing is not really a strategy.
I agree that Sealion is still too easy to pull off. It seems the balance between UK london & UK Med forces is not really perfect yet.
I would say UK london should be stronger and UK Med & Africa forces should be slightly weaker.
I agree that Sealion is still too easy to pull off. It seems the balance between UK london & UK Med forces is not really perfect yet.
I would say UK london should be stronger and UK Med & Africa forces should be slightly weaker.
Agreed.
Capital sack rules: I blame you! Sea Lion would not be a real problem if Canada and South Africa could continue the war (buying units) after the fall of London
I agree that Sealion is still too easy to pull off. It seems the balance between UK london & UK Med forces is not really perfect yet.
I would say UK london should be stronger and UK Med & Africa forces should be slightly weaker.Agreed.
sounds good. Arguments and torpedoes be dam’m’ed, I’m still quite sure that the ultimate reason that UK was split in the first place was so that there would finally be a reason to try Sea Lion realistically and still keep UK in the game for the Pacific. splitting Can/SAfrica out still may make it more interesting, but hey, i don’t need to take either of them to win as the Axis.
I’m also in agreement with the notion that UK Europe is too weak. A G3 Sealion, even with a UK strategy of getting everything home (assuming all previous battles have gone fairly well and that also means letting the Italians run wild in the med) is at best a 50/50 chance at holding. With the Italians wild, they can get up to 40IPC in a hurry with nothing to stop them but the Americans, and they MUST spend in the Pacific or lose the game economically or by having Japan take 6 cities quickly.
One of the joys of a global game should be NOT having definite strats that work nearly every time. I feel that Sealion is killer for the Allies. Yes, Russia is strong because they do not get hit until G4, but with the 30IPC bump to Germany, plus the NO, and a weak US in the Atlantic, Germany should be able to beat back Russia and hold off the US.
The simple economics of the situation is the Axis is making as much and/or more than the Allies by end of turn 4 AND the Axis has more units typically in play (and better positioning as well).
Seems that a simple bid by the Allies as previously discussed would solve it. Just 4/5 more units in London would make Sealion much more difficult and still have UK making some very tough choices with Italy. OR, as others have said, allow Canada/SA move forward with the limited IPCs left. Or, the other solution would be to not have IPCs on hand go to the nation taking a capital. Yes, the nation loses the IPCs on hand, but it does not go to the victor. The 19IPC bump that Germany gets for France effectively eliminates 3 transports for a G3 landing and that alone could make the difference.
Tough questions to balance such a robust game. IMHO I really like the new rules, the NOs and the set up. Just feel that Sealion should not be as easy as it is.
We just started our first global game and so far the pacific is fairly even Japan is almost through north china however south china with the UK there is another story. Russia and Japan have not started batttle and why bother if your Japan just have enough defense there to hold the infantry back. Japan on turn 2 attacked the fleet off of the west cost of the US leaving a total loss for Japan and leaving the US with a severly depleated fleet. Germany conquered all of France on Turn 1. Commenced Operation Sea Lion on turn 2 and conquered the UK leaving a tank and an Infantry and is postured to take Novograd at the start of turn 3. The UK tried to take England back with 2 infantry and 2 fighters and had extremely low luck hitting only one infantry. So it comes down to luck of the dice, it seems exteremly even on first glance.
We play with a “bid” for UK (Europe) which we call the Churchill rule. This usually helps defend Sealion
You have to recite at least 3 lines of Churchills infamous speech at the start of your turn, (sometimes flexible on the amount recited depending on alochol consumption) then for each infantry purchased, you get a 2nd infantry free. (Half price infantry). We limit it usually to no more than 10 units, but we sort of just play it by ear when we use it.
Buffing the defense of England would be the only increase to the allies I could fathom.
However, thinking upon it, I think we could do something similar to the Kamikazee rule for England. England gets 6 Infantry that defend England but cannot leave England for any reason (to include Scotland.) Once dead, they die. Each infantry must be paired with a normal infantry unit. (ie, if you had 5 infantry then you could only use 5 England defenders, not the full 6.)
To make it less impactful, maybe they only defend on a 1?
It would make Sea Lion harder while not making England any stronger and not making it impossible for Germany to win. It would have to be followed up with either moving the VC from Quebec to S. Africa or adding a VC to S. Africa (without making Germany need 9 VCs to win.) To compensate for a harder shot at England (and thus, a harder shot at Russia too.)
@Cmdr:
Buffing the defense of England would be the only increase to the allies I could fathom.
However, thinking upon it, I think we could do something similar to the Kamikazee rule for England. England gets 6 Infantry that defend England but cannot leave England for any reason (to include Scotland.) Once dead, they die. Each infantry must be paired with a normal infantry unit. (ie, if you had 5 infantry then you could only use 5 England defenders, not the full 6.)
To make it less impactful, maybe they only defend on a 1?
It would make Sea Lion harder while not making England any stronger and not making it impossible for Germany to win. It would have to be followed up with either moving the VC from Quebec to S. Africa or adding a VC to S. Africa (without making Germany need 9 VCs to win.) To compensate for a harder shot at England (and thus, a harder shot at Russia too.)
You might be on to something, Cmdr. England did have the “Home Guard.” Pretty much a useless militia of civilians, but implementing them as 0/1 Units that can’t move from England proper is a good idea. Essential, they would act as fodder for other units. Perhaps the “bid” could be based on the number of Home Guardsmen that one get to play the UK?
@Cmdr:
Buffing the defense of England would be the only increase to the allies I could fathom.
However, thinking upon it, I think we could do something similar to the Kamikazee rule for England. England gets 6 Infantry that defend England but cannot leave England for any reason (to include Scotland.) Once dead, they die. Each infantry must be paired with a normal infantry unit. (ie, if you had 5 infantry then you could only use 5 England defenders, not the full 6.)
To make it less impactful, maybe they only defend on a 1?
It would make Sea Lion harder while not making England any stronger and not making it impossible for Germany to win. It would have to be followed up with either moving the VC from Quebec to S. Africa or adding a VC to S. Africa (without making Germany need 9 VCs to win.) To compensate for a harder shot at England (and thus, a harder shot at Russia too.)
sounds promising but must keep sealion viable
Paint up some models in plebian outfits and stick some pitchforks on the end of the guns. “Civilian” units are massively under represented in AA… probably with good reason, but Russia should get to use them too.
Well, Sea Lion would still be viable, but I figure, with the Home Guard units, it wouldn’t be viable until Round 4 (Just before America enters) or Round 5 (with one round of American reinforcements, which would ease pressure on Japan).
Home Guard:
Cost: 2 IPC
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defend: 1
Max: 5 on England, ONLY, cannot be built anywhere else.
@Cmdr:
Home Guard:
Cost: 2 IPC
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defend: 1
Max: 5 on England, ONLY, cannot be built anywhere else.
Not sure if I like the idea of these units being purchased. I think a strict number of them should be bid on before the game with the restriction that they cannot move from England/Scotland.
@Cmdr:
Well, Sea Lion would still be viable, but I figure, with the Home Guard units, it wouldn’t be viable until Round 4 (Just before America enters) or Round 5 (with one round of American reinforcements, which would ease pressure on Japan).
Home Guard:
Cost: 2 IPC
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defend: 1
Max: 5 on England, ONLY, cannot be built anywhere else.
I think that deserves a playtest unfortunately I am currently unable to try at this point in time
