US Strategy Poll: KJF vs. KGF

@Dylan:

@knp7765:

And the French are back in the game and really pissed off!  Ach Der Lieber!

Frenchies!!! :-D :-) :-( :-o :? 8-) :lol: :x :-P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :| :mrgreen:

I know, it sounds silly.  However, in one game we played where the Allies won, USA liberated France as well as Normandy and S. France.  The Italians never really built up much steam in Africa so they had most of their colonies there so they were making somewhat decent money.  France bought some tanks, art and men.  Meanwhile, Germany was struggling desperately.  Both the US and UK threw invasions at Western Germany and were repulsed, although with a good number of German casualties.  Who ended up taking W Germany?  France.
Although, since US and UK went before France, they didn’t have a lot left to hold it and Germany took it back next round.  The damage was done though.  The IC was reduced to a Minor and Germany was getting spread thinner and thinner.  I’m just saying that France, once liberated, could be a factor in the game depending on how things are going.

@knp7765:

I know, it sounds silly.  However, in one game we played where the Allies won, USA liberated France as well as Normandy and S. France.  The Italians never really built up much steam in Africa so they had most of their colonies there so they were making somewhat decent money.  France bought some tanks, art and men.  Meanwhile, Germany was struggling desperately.  Both the US and UK threw invasions at Western Germany and were repulsed, although with a good number of German casualties.  Who ended up taking W Germany?  France.
Although, since US and UK went before France, they didn’t have a lot left to hold it and Germany took it back next round.  The damage was done though.  The IC was reduced to a Minor and Germany was getting spread thinner and thinner.  I’m just saying that France, once liberated, could be a factor in the game depending on how things are going.

So in other words …. after the French were liberated by the UK/USA and the UK/USA removed the Germany troops … then France was a factor? Heck - then anybody would be a factor in that situation  :evil:

KGF! For the first 2 or 3 rounds, then switch to Japan.

@knp7765:

@Dylan:

@knp7765:

And the French are back in the game and really pissed off!  Ach Der Lieber!

Frenchies!!! :-D :-) :-( :-o :? 8-) :lol: :x :-P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :| :mrgreen:

I know, it sounds silly.  However, in one game we played where the Allies won, USA liberated France as well as Normandy and S. France.  The Italians never really built up much steam in Africa so they had most of their colonies there so they were making somewhat decent money.  France bought some tanks, art and men.  Meanwhile, Germany was struggling desperately.  Both the US and UK threw invasions at Western Germany and were repulsed, although with a good number of German casualties.  Who ended up taking W Germany?  France.
Although, since US and UK went before France, they didn’t have a lot left to hold it and Germany took it back next round.  The damage was done though.  The IC was reduced to a Minor and Germany was getting spread thinner and thinner.  I’m just saying that France, once liberated, could be a factor in the game depending on how things are going.

Still the French act like a bunch of babies. Or le bébé’s

Still that was impressive.

I think there’s something missing here…  and that’s kill Italy (first?).  Just show up in the med with a massive US fleet with about 4-5 transports.  If Italy falls, or is made irrelevant than the game is won…  Obviously you will have to throw a few units into the pacific to slow Japan somewhat, but how fast can they really win?  The turn after war is declared on America they can get a decent sized fleet to gibraltar.  Add to that two turns of, say, 60% of their income and I don’t think Italy survives.  So we’re talking game turn 6 or 7 at the latest?  Can Japan win that fast even if the US completely ignores them?

got a good point man. either way, if you stage properly in the Atlantic and the Allies hold Gibraltar, America can do some crazy damage in Europe, and quickly. make an opening for Russia and they won’t need transports to roll over Europe.

My group has played 8 full games of Global 1940 with varying setups.  I think the first 2 or 3 were OOB, 1 or 2 with Alpha, 1 with Alpha +1 and the last 3 with Alpha +2.  Of those 8 games, the Axis has won 6 of them, the Allies 2.  I usually play Axis, Germany or Japan.  One of the Allied victories I played USA.  I’m not sure how much difference was due to the setups because we haven’t played enough games with any given setup, although we are on our 9th game now and still using Alpha +2.
One thing I have noticed and I think is a BIG part of whether or not the Axis wins is the USA strategy.  Our normal USA player does not commit fully to a Pacific or Europe strategy (and I don’t think he has quite caught on yet).  He is too reactionary.  For instance, say Japan is really flexing their muscle and threatening Hawaii or even W USA.  He will build heavily in the Pacific for 2 or 3 rounds and clash a lot with Japan.  Then say Sealion happens and he switches gears and starts pouring stuff into the Atlantic.  Then Japan takes out the last of his fleet, or takes Alaska, or something and he goes back to fighting Japan again.
Each time he does this, he leaves his plans in the alternate theater  unfinished and the Axis units end up beating him piecemeal.  Too much back and forth.  Meanwhile, the Germans thrust into Russia, Japan gets the DEI, wipes out China and heads for Calcutta and Italy steamrolls through Africa unhindered.  By the time he reacts to another threat, it is either too late or the Axis is able to counter it.
When I played USA, I left enough to keep Japan off of North America, or at least protected Western US, and threw everything else into pounding Italy then Germany.  Japan was only able to get 5 VCs and once the Euro Axis was done for, it was easy for everyone to head back and mop up Japan.
So, in my estimation, the best way for the Allies to win is for USA to go one way or the other.  If USA tries to split between theaters, they won’t have enough to fight each of the Axis in those theaters and will keep getting beat down.  At the very least, they simply won’t build enough to really make a difference – like liberating UK or France or taking out Italy in Europe, or defeating the japanese navy in the Pacific.

@knp7765:

<snip>So, in my estimation, the best way for the Allies to win is for USA to go one way or the other.  If USA tries to split between theaters, they won’t have enough to fight each of the Axis in those theaters and will keep getting beat down.  At the very least, they simply won’t build enough to really make a difference – like liberating UK or France or taking out Italy in Europe, or defeating the japanese navy in the Pacific.</snip>

That is why some of us would like to see some sort of balancing act for Alpha+3 that “encourages” the USA to split more between the two sides, instead of just promoting a near 100% involvement on either side of the board to begin with.

Okay, so I can understand that if USA goes 100% either way, it is usually doom for the Axis.  One side get’s smashed while the other side just can’t get enough VCs to win before all the Allies are bearing down on it.  This makes many of you feel that the game is imbalanced toward the Allies.  However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?  As one who normally plays an Axis power, yeah I like to win it but I don’t want to win every time with almost no fear of losing the game.  Also, I know that historically the US did go both ways and we of course crushed the Axis.  I am not sure you could properly simulate that in this game unless you actually raised the US income.  There has been talk of changing certain NOs, particularly the one involving Mexico and the Carribbean, for something in the Atlantic, Africa or Europe itself.  Well, how about not changing ANY of the current NOs, but rather ADDING some new ones in the European theater.  Yes, it will make the US income even larger, but they will need more if they HAVE to invest in both theaters.

As a side note, before the US was actually in the war, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that when the US was finally in the war, defeat of Germany would take precedence over Japan.  When war did come, and Hitler and Mussolini were stupid enough to declare war on the US, the majority of the funding did go toward the European theater.  As big as the operations might have been in the Pacific, as far as funding went it was almost like an afterthought compared to the preparations for the Atlantic side.  So, maybe having the US adopt a KGF strategy in the game would be more in line historically.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.