Same here, I try to go for pacific victory. The only victory I recognize as being legit for axis.
Sometimes I wonder what this game would be like with -10 usa and 2 russian inf spawning every round.
@Cow:
Sometimes I wonder what this game would be like with -10 usa and 2 russian inf spawning every round.
interesting idea
got me to thinking
japan and russia can’t attack each other until rd8?
would mirror the real war
maybe have to keep minimum 6 inf east of yakutat till rd8?
Well, I think japan attacking russia is a sub optimal strategy to begin with and never had a problem.
I just push for pacific gains and so what if I lose russia? It comes down to egypt and london after that. If the axis don’t rush it and try to get an economic advantage, it is easy for allies to get and maintain an edge with all that pacific money.
I am a little confused why USA does not have a destroyer with his cruiser in global… I mean uboats been around since WW1. Could slap a DD down in the atlantic for usa.
I just feel that when it comes to Japan going for pacific win vs USA going full pacific, that it favors usa slightly, where as germany vs russia is totally one sided.
Therefor I don’t recognize axis winning in europe as being anything significant other than what is supposed to happen in this game.
I have played quite a few games of Global 40 across all the different setups: OOB, Alpha, Alpha+, Alpha+1, Alpha+2, Alpha+3 and the latest which some refer to as Alpha+3.9, which seems to me like just a few tweaks to Alpha+3 rather than a significant setup change. Most of our games end up in Axis wins, I would say roughly 70%-75%.
A lot of the Allied losses are usually due to USA trying to split it’s income between both theaters nearly evenly, which ends up being that USA doesn’t have enough to deal with the Axis on either side, or USA starts playing reactionarily. Like they start out mostly Pacific, then something happens like London falls, so they switch everything to the Atlantic. This usually ends up being “too little too late” on the Europe side and they end up giving Japan a boost in the Pacific side.
The best Allied wins usually involve the US going nearly 100% Pacific and hitting Japan hard as quickly as possible. If Russia can manage to hold off Germany long enough while the UK can keep Italy in check while harrassing Germany some, US should be able to arrive in force in time to stop Germany and Italy in their tracks.
Also, while it seems like a lot of people think if Japan takes Calcutta it will almost ensure victory for Japan, I have found that it can be a trap. More than once, I have seen Japan go down to take out India and grab the DEI only to have the US surround Japan with a huge fleet and convoy raid and SBR Japan to death because all of Japan’s fleet is down south protecting the transport fleet. Then they have to go back up and try to fight for their home waters against an ever increasing US fleet, and often ends up losing. Plus, ANZAC sneaks in behind and takes away the DEI, which costs Japan even more money. It’s really hard for Japan to take out India, capture and hold the DEI and keep the US Navy from occupying the home waters. Also, it might also have a problem with the forces in China getting steadily ground down.
Sometimes the best way for the Axis to win is for Japan to keep the US occupied long enough for Germany to reach Moscow. Usually once that happens, London and Cairo will fall soon after and the Axis will win.
@Cow:
Well, I think japan attacking russia is a sub optimal strategy to begin with and never had a problem.
I just push for pacific gains and so what if I lose russia? It comes down to egypt and london after that. If the axis don’t rush it and try to get an economic advantage, it is easy for allies to get and maintain an edge with all that pacific money.
How do you leave your Northerm border then? I thought I could abandon Manchuria and maintain 8 Inf and 3 fighters in Korea. If Russia attacks always have a TT in Japan and 3 more Air to retake Manc. Would need some Art too.
Is not ideal.
I let russia take korea and manchuria. f it. I mean it is always good to attack russia if he leaves 6 inf up top, but other than that… f it.
A3 still has some kinks in my opinion, but its damn close to as good as we are going to get for a board game of this size.
The convoy system, economic warfare, and tech are all lacking.
But combat, setup, National Objectives, are pretty solid.
As for an advantage…I think the axis has a good shot at winning with haymakers.
They can get to Moscow pretty quickly and that pretty much ends the game…or Japan can get dangerously close to a VC win very quickly in the pacific. (within 1 VC almost the whole game)
Even Italy can become a monster, the 3rd axis power really helps the game, gives the allies something to worry about.
In the long haul though, Allies dominate.
We haven’t had too many close games…most are runaways.
Either the Axis steamrolls to Moscow or Calcutta, or they flounder out of the gate and the UK is in Greece and the Balkans in a big way by turn 3, and the US has a massive force at Gibraltar ready to land troops anywhere in Europe.
you are right, not too many close games.
