URGENT : in a middle of a game and need an answer

@Moxin The axis do have an advantage, but when you’re just starting out you only need a bit of help as the Allies to win, 12 or 16 bid

I have played something like 80 games face to face and 7 on Triple A

Well….nice video…I would have to say that was indeed very painful to see the USA played so poorly. As soon as I saw x-ports sitting fully loaded offshore of GB w/o protection I knew they were doomed w/ poor leadership. Interesting that ANZAC was able to roam so freely. Also…how was China able to wipe out Japans air force?  :-o Thanks for sharing this. It’s fun to see how others play. I’ve gone up against some folks that won’t make a move w/o their calculators and electronic apps and ridiculously large forces. Then are completely surprised when they lose. I’ve never played with those type of gadgets. I’ve been playing since A&A was introduced and always come up w/ a game plan, buy accordingly and go for it. I tend to try spontaneous battles as opportunity presents itself. (Such as fully loaded x-ports w/o protection  :wink: ) I win some & lose some…but always learn and have some serious fun. Thanks again!

Yep G40 has a big learning curve

@zanetheinsane:

@knp7765:

Now I had all those infantry, artillery and tanks stuck in Morocco with no way to get anywhere important.

That’s why I always land in Gibraltar. It’s rare that something horrible happens, but when it does… Spain is always an option. Get with the UK player who can hopefully take on Turkey. Not the prettiest course of action, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and getting an Allied foothold in Spain isn’t the worst you can do.

Hmmm…interesting choice. Early on in playing Global, we had 3 different games where the Axis attacked strict neutrals. In fact, we even adopted a house rule using Neutral Blocks so only certain strict neutrals would be affected – Europe, S America, Africa, Middle-East, Mongolia. So if say Sweeden was taken by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Portugal would go Pro-Allied but Argentina would still be strict neutral. I know some people put Turkey in the Europe block, but we decided to put it in the Middle East block.
We have NEVER had the Allies attack a strict neutral. For one thing, they are usually too busy fighting the Axis to expend resources fighting a neutral. Plus they don’t want to give the Axis any free infantry and territories by turning the other stricts into Pro-Axis, even if it’s just in that block. Also, I guess we just kind of have the mindset that the Allies are the good guys and having them violate a country’s neutrality just doesn’t feel right.
In most of our games, we have played with the strict neutrals basically off limits, both by the Axis and the Allies. Perhaps we should re-think our strategies and start involving the neutrals more in our games.

Rules are rules anyway, if you want leniancy, you have to ask for it.  This would not be a case where I would be inclined to grant it, mind you.  If you moved everything from Hawaii to Carlines but forgot to move a fighter there leaving it prone to attack, then I could see a case of “yea, okay, so you intended to move it but it got lost in the shuffle” fine, generally I’d allow that change (for non-league, non-tournament games, of course.)

so you see no chance for the axis to win?

i think, the japanese airpower is still a real threat to the us navy. second, small numbers of transport available or nearby to start landing operations for the usa.

in europe, i agree mostly, but i see a big defensive potential in germany. it could stall a lot, couldn´t it?

greetings and thanx for the answer.

no offence taken.

I too (as you can tell) like the long posts like just like I like the long games of A&A…BOTH show the kind of thought I like to put into things…but than again I’m a game geek as my wife so often and fondly calls me and something about the written word brings out the talker in me (I can’t’ figure that one out yet since I cant spell to save my life and if anything I’m under educated when compared to most people).  ANYWAY…

The points you make (as well as several others that have been posted on this topic) about “flow control” of the game do help.  I’m not saying they don’t.  When you get in a check out line at any store, the line that has “the best checker” is always the faster line in comparison to the other lines regardless of how many persons are in line and how many items they have. in other words how well, the assembly line works is as important to how many parts need to be put on and how complicated it is to put each part on.

The more Powers you have in a game, the more parts in the assembly line.  The minor powers are well…just that…minor parts in the assembly line and in the case of France they take seconds compared to the several minutes that the BIG powers take to do their turn.

However, when you lay out the game in an assembly line with each power (no matter how small or BIG they are) in a line (as the turn order is “out of the box”) that makes the LONGEST critical path possible.

If you can cut the game into two halves (Europe and Pacific) and make them into two separate critical paths, you can shorten the time it takes to play each round by half or more (depending on how many “BIG POWERS” there are in each assembly line). Its a the over lapping of critical path activities where ever possible that will save you the most time.

Example:
If Germany takes 15 minutes to do their turn
And if Russia takes 10 minutes to do their turn
And if Japan takes 15 minutes
UK takes 10 minutes
ANZAC takes 5
Italy takes 5
USA takes 10
China takes 2
France takes 1

Because everyone has to wait in line for each other in one assembly line that’s a critical path of 73 minutes per round (give or take several minutes for slow play or fast play).  Now a good checker could clear that check out line in maybe 70 minutes just buy their skill, so having a banker, a task master and a chess clock to help keep everyone moving through the assembly line can obviously help. But it can only do so much.

Now, multiply that by the number of rounds it takes to play the game of tug-o-war in the examples above at IF the shortest tug of war is 10 rounds, that’s a game that last…700 minutes or 11.66 hours.

Now, break the critical path into two assembly lines and it would look more like this.

Europe Pacific
Germany, 15 Japan 15
Russia, 10 UK, 5
UK, 5 ANZAC, 5
Italy, 5 USA, 5
USA, 5 China, 2
France, 1

41 minutes 32 minutes

You still have the 73 minutes to play “each round, but you did it in 41 minutes on one board and 32 minutes on another board.  You just shorted each round by 32 minutes (73 – 41 (the longest critical path) = 32 minutes).

Now, multiply that by the number of rounds it takes to play the game of tug-o-war in the examples above at IF the shortest tug of war is 10 rounds, that’s a game that last…410 minutes 6.8 hours.

Breaking the game into two critical paths IS more than possible in this EPIC game (IMO) because there really is that much of a separation between the two theaters of war in this game when compared to any games before it.

Players on the pacific should probably wait till the round on the Europe board is finished before starting another round (this will probably help with any “overlaps”). But in short, by having the tow half played at the same time (overlapping critical paths) you just shaved an approximate 4.86 hours off the game compared to the 30 minutes that you could shave off by keeping them in one critical path chain and having a good “system” to get everyone through the check out line faster.

BUT…while this idea has plenty of merit…like in construction, the more tasks you have running at the same time, the more crew you need. So having both half’s of the board being played at one time would require a minimum of 4 players compared to 2 players, so for some people, this idea just wont work because they don’t have the available players.