Axis victory

Out of the Box Manual:

Allies win by controlling Tokyo, Japan for one full round of play
or
Allies win by controlling Berlin, Germany and Rome, Italy for one full round of play

@Cmdr:

Out of the Box Manual:

Allies win by controlling Tokyo, Japan for one full round of play
or
Allies win by controlling Berlin, Germany and Rome, Italy for one full round of play

I have to correct you here Jen.  I’ve got the OOB Manual for Europe 40 which also has the Global 40 rules.  On Page 31 under How the War Is Won, it states:
"The Allies win the game by controlling the territories of Germany, Southern Italy, and Japan for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Allied capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow).

So you see, all the Axis capitals have to be in Allied hands, not just on one board or the other.  Only the Axis have split victory conditions and that is only in Alpha+3.  In OOB, the Axis simply had to control any 14 Victory Cities for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Axis Capital (Berlin, Rome or Tokyo).

@ronrye:

Uhhhh, well I can’t say what’s in the oob rules, because I don’t have europe, but don’t you play by Alpha 3 rules and victory conditions?

Personally?  I play by when the axis cry uncle the game is over.  I’ve never seen an Axis capitol both taken AND held before the Axis surrender.

All of these WEAK players lack the Vision on how to use their allied forces to WIN Cow.  Don’t ever lose sight of that.

I agree.

Also doing an attack and retreating after USA lost bombers is a much better outcome than UK losing london. UK gets to collect again which is 30ish ipc give or take depending on whatever. So give me a break man. Like the 5 bomber loss is something to sweat. Not like germany won’t lose a few air units to AA guns or anything.

I still think larry harris gimped the united kingdom 2 inf it is supposed to have… in fact whatever happened to an armor on UK?

@Cow:

All of these WEAK players lack the Vision on how to use their allied forces to WIN Cow.  Don’t ever lose sight of that.

I agree.

Also doing an attack and retreating after USA lost bombers is a much better outcome than UK losing london. UK gets to collect again which is 30ish ipc give or take depending on whatever. So give me a break man. Like the 5 bomber loss is something to sweat. Not like germany won’t lose a few air units to AA guns or anything.Â

I still think larry harris gimped the united kingdom 2 inf it is supposed to have… in fact whatever happened to an armor on UK?

Your whole American bomber scenario assumes an Early Japan attack, though.  I don’t think you can assume every player who is going to attack England on round 3 is going to start the war on Round 2, especially if they suspect they’re going to lose armor taking England because America put bombers there.

Assuming a normal game, where Germany hits on Round 3, there are no American bombers in England and the odds are over 90% - which has been clearely established after a pretty vigorous debate at Harris Games’ website.

doesn’t assume anything. even if usa is not at war in round 2… not like a bomber buy is useless… not like you can do any combat movements anyway.

besides if war starts round 3. 5 bombers can do some pretty tricky play. like go to africa and sink italy if it gets near egypt or if you feel it in the pacific it can put some pressure on japan naval and keep it from spreading out. sink germany maybe on the off chance he doesn’t have a carrier with 2 fighters bship and cruiser there.

besides japan not entering war round 2 is kind of a good thing for the allies as a whole most of the time.

The round 2 buy can be more bombers to force germany to land guys on scotland instead of UK (unless he wants to lose all his transports).

which is -2 men attacking UK. odds decrease from 90% to about 70% to take down UK.

I’d say that is pretty good. 2 less guys attacking could mean germany suffers more losses on a big battle. could mean 2 fighters get to fire a few extra times on defense. 4 more kills is nothin to shrug at.

So you would advocate purchasing 4 bombers on round 1 without regard to what the Axis may or may not do then?

I think this is less than optimal, but then that’s probably due to how we play the game.  I would just worry about not having enough warships to be effective in the Pacific or the Atlantic.  Yes the bombers could get to London later (if it isnt sacked) and conduct bombing runs.

I think you are advocating 5 Strategics, 3 Fighters, Tactical Bomber vs 5 fighters, 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 BB, 3 DD, 13 Transports in SZ 110 right after London falls?  If not, then disregard the following:

Axis:  94.8% Odds of winning
Allies: 3.5% Odds of winning
by: http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html

I don’t think America would do this attack, this is why I am saying that the German fleet is immune from retribution.  Maybe I missed something though?  Assume America cannot get closer than SZ 102 due to not being at war, and cannot land their bombers in England for the same reason.

Another Sealion debate?

We’ve had soo many since the tactic popped up in the summer of 2010.

:roll:

We all know it works quite well barring dice or bad play.  Why start this merry-go-round again?

It’s all Sea Lion, Jim!  Common, you’ve known this since Alpha 2, right? lol

Solution:  1 British Economy.  Sea Lion is no longer assured, no more ridiculousness of some pissant India telling the Mighty British Empire it won’t send it’s taxes to London and England can make or break itself!

Possible variant:  Major Complex in India downgraded to Minor Complex.

What do you mean British economy?  1 single collect for UK and India?

I don’t know about that.  With the US pushing their $ in any direction, you don’t see this as being compounded with the UK being able to do the same?

I say just add some useless ground units to UK (AAs, Frenchies or something) to bring the odds down to ~60%.  Then bid for VCs.  My 2 cents.

Yes, I mean England collects and spends for all of England, regardless of Pacific or Atlantic.

Yes this could make life harder on Germany, but then in turn you are making life easier on Japan, right?

The way I have seen it (very limited experience, a total of 3 games so far) the game plays out very similarly to Anniversary.

… or better yet, consolidate UK’s fleet in Scapa Flow, where it belongs.  And do the same for Italy’s fleet and put it in Taranto, where it belongs.

Shame on you Larry.

@jim010:

… or better yet, consolidate UK’s fleet in Scapa Flow, where it belongs. � And do the same for Italy’s fleet and put it in Taranto, where it belongs.

Shame on you Larry.

What I liked about one power, one economy is this:

1)  It’s like America.  If England is split, then it makes more sense to split America too, the American people would have been riotous if the Navy had not moved to engage Japan!
2)  England’s not all that much more powerful with the Pacific economy added in, it’s pretty simple to reduce Pacific to 3 or 4 IPC without taking India
3)  It gives England that little extra to defend itself against Sea Lion without denying Germany the chance to do Sea Lion if England doesnt defend itself right
4)  It does not add any units to the board
5)  It does not move any units on the board.

@Cmdr:

Yes, I mean England collects and spends for all of England, regardless of Pacific or Atlantic.

Yes this could make life harder on Germany, but then in turn you are making life easier on Japan, right?Â

The way I have seen it (very limited experience, a total of 3 games so far) the game plays out very similarly to Anniversary.

I’ll wait and see what others think.  I see a UK/US push on one side or the other as devastating. Â

Without Sealion, so far I’m not liking Axis chances.  Even the turn 6 Russia Rush I did was the absolute MOST I could get to Moscow.  That battle was 70% and would have dropped to ~50% if India could have reinforced.

I’m not against your idea, just leery.

To be honest, I am in two games with it now and have only finished 2 games of it (1 Alled win followed by one Axis DOMINATION!!!)

There are many pitfalls for England.  For one thing, Japan can still win with 6 VCs, so you can sit there all day long with hundreds of destroyers in SZ 110 and still lose and what they did was basically abandon India which Japan took relatively unopposed (3 Transports, BB, Carrier, 3 strategics and a couple of fighters vs 4 or 5 units defending) which meant they had more to face off against America.

What that means, basically, is that it’s like one or two rounds of full England to secure England and then they go back to investing in India, I think.  This could lead to more crush Japan games, but then you have the opposite factor - how do you stop the Germans from winning?

Anyway, there’s a lot of support for variants of the combined income rule over at Larry’s site.  Which probably means Larry will tell us to stuff it and wont make it official. lol.

Anyway, there’s a lot of support for variants of the combined income rule over at Larry’s site.  Which probably means Larry will tell us to stuff it and wont make it official. lol.

I gave up on Larry’s site when he “tried” to fix the India Crush in Pacific.  And then watched him completely rework global and expected us to playtest for him.

I will NOT be giving him my money when his next game comes out.

I suspect his next game will be out next year or the year after which is why he’s trying to “finish” global.

I really want more play testing, but I honestly believe dropping the stupid rule of split Economy for England will balance things out, maybe require a small Axis bid and that’s it.  (I think it’s stupid because no other nation is split like that when America really SHOULD be split due to my understanding that the generals and politicians wanted to work on Germany but the American people wanted to work on Japan in retalliation.  My understanding might be incorrect - after all, I was raised in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, you are all American pig-dogs trying to shove your hegemonious opinions on us all. :P )