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

@cds

Great! First time for me playing a full game of Oztea 1939 (I’ll be Allies).

@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:

@Travelman:

… or is there surprise attack capability lost since they are not accompanied by destroyers?

Actually it is the attacker’s destroyer that cancels the defending sub’s surprise strike ability.
A defending destroyer would cancel the attacking sub’s surprise strike ability.

I know that this is a variant, but just wanted to give a brief review of the G42 variant in my Games 94 and 95, here is a link to the canon  :wink: version that I think breathes some new life into the game and the outstandingly designed board/map:

http://axisandallies.wikia.com/wiki/File:G42setup2013424.pdf

The beauty of this scenario is that many of the ‘Cadillac’ extra factories and naval and air bases have been removed from the game, so it makes strategic bombing much more viable and abusive against the Axis.  Germany has to be much more careful how it builds (in terms of +2 turns out planning) and Japan has to avoid losing 1 of its 2 (not 3-4) major fleets.

Also, many of the extra infantry and much of the fleet depth have been removed from the G40 setup, which means that production is more important than the starting pieces at the beginning of the game.

Overall, Germany is on the strategic defensive.  The turn order has been altered, which makes the strategic initiative operate in the Allies favor.  Huge back and forth battles in the steppe and marsh and islands and canals lead to a battle of attrition and placement.

The game has no diplomacy, and starts with everyone at war and the Axis near threshold income (50-60), so it is somewhat faster than G40 to get to the good stuff.    The Axis still have tons of planes and ships but are much curtailed so they have to make more focused choices in order to win.

New NOs and placements make the med, SE pacific, East russia and africa more dynamic areas of conflict.  Hackneyed openers are out forcing you to think dynamically, though the Allies still start with plenty of stacks so the Axis has to attack.

Have fun good luck. Taam

@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.

it is better.

ANZAC and UK should be allowed to fight together anyways.

They be coming soon.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16012.75

ROTFL!

My kids better not leave my transport fleet hanging in the breeze