Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@Kreuzfeld said in Why is Global better than Revised?:

@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)

Hi ANZAC.  For the HBG 1939 map, think of a 4x8 sheet of plywood.  Its is HUGE and awesome.  You need a big room for that size table plus room to walk around on all 4 sides.  I only played the 1939 game one time and I can say it is definitely superior in a hundred different ways, but playing it is an order of magnitude more complex than global 1940.  Global 1940 seems like the kiddie game next to it, which is nuts because global 1940 is not an easy game by any means.  I’d say your best bet is to get the global 1940 if only for the pieces, and then blow the extra money for the 1939 map and elite pieces if and when you and your crew outgrow it.  Another option is to play 1940 on this site with triplea.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@Admiral:

@Rhey:

I always attack Japan in China on UK Pac 2. This reopens the burma route (as the Japanese have way too limited ground forces) and keeps china in play. China is really more important then most of the players think. I find them very strong, especially against those scattered Japanese forces. The only problem is their airforce but every japanese unit you can take out on the mainland, is a huge win.

Crazy thing about the Japanese air force and Chinese units is this, the latter just needs to keep those precious stacks out of their range. Pull back, retreat. Advance when the time is right. A smart Chinese players does this, and makes the Japanese player really invest their time in the Chinese hinterland, splitting their options.

Best strategy for the Chinese is to play exactly like the Russians:  Turtle up and keep one step away from the units trying to take them out.  Each round you’ll be able to add 2-3 Inf to your big starting stack.  Once Japan attacks the UK or Anzac, you’re free to start marching towards either A:  Burma Road to reclaim it or B: The valuable territories the Japanese start with in the north.

Both cases make Japan invest more deeply into taking China than it wants to, while buying time until India can help you retake the Burma Road.  Don’t play foolish with your big starting stack, protect it until the Japanese are too thin or they’ve invested too much in China (which is an IPC sink if Japan doesn’t get it early).

With the relative ease of taking London and Calcutta (in opposition to Sydney and Muskva) it seems better to go after England

But beyond that, if you take London, you negate all of England’s income, even if you cannot take the territories!  Worse yet, Calcutta can take stuff and can liberate stuff on the Atlantic map, but can never collect for it, so you’ve effectively, permanently ended England.

Just my current thoughts, I reserve the right to change my mind with little to no notice and for whatever reason I so choose. (Woman’s perogative.)

Not yet.

Hi, was wondering if anybody had the alpha 2 setup pics anywhere??

Many thanks