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

@ShadowHAwk:

@Kreuzfeld:

@seancb:

Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.

I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships  than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.

The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D

which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.

What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.

I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.

I think four player is the best.  As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do.

The setup I prefer:

Germany & Italy
Japan

Russia, UK, France
USA, China, Anzac

The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.

@Boldfresh:

honestly, i think this game is awesome with it’s CURRENT setup.  i feel like the allies need nothing.

I don’t see how the axis can lose in this setup if the allies receive nothing.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.

@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).

OK I cast my second vote for R&D.

One more vote is needed for Alpha3 AA to beat “none of the above”.  COME ON AA GUNS!!

germany did sea lion. russia bought mostly mech / tank and bunkered romania when germany/italy finally got enough for force ruskies out (ruskies did a detour for iraq and the african spots). ruskies turned around with mech and tanks and blitzed to calcutta then made it back in time for germany vs russia.

this game coupled with 30 infantry china and all 18 ruskies still alive in asia… japan was shut down.  germany took russia, uk just finally got transports and men. uk pac was worthless but still a funny liberation.
~
yeah sea lion sucks sometimes lol. ruskies owning italy africa is no good lol. +3 each one and iraq too. go go mech + bombers.

the pacific showdown was hilarious too. I am not sure why japan attacked phillipines. it was a mutual destruction battle… but after that anzac’s naval looked pretty nice on an empty board. I had java the whole game because he round 3 india and lost so much stuff.

If japan did not get shut down, I would have totally lost. all he needed was hawaii after round 3. that was a funny game

You wouldn’t happen to have some drawing on that you would be willing to share?

What’s the out to out dimensions?
What’s it  standing on? is it a table that sits on anther table or is it a free standing table too?
How deep is the board set down?…etc, etc?

I’m working on some tables for the AA game group I run but we are tossing around the idea of elevating the table with a “lip” under it for trays and stuff rather than too the sides, the idea being this way the board stays as narrow as possible.

any info you would be willing to share would be cool, if you share none, that’s cool too…just seeing it is help enough.  Thanks for sharing the pics, seeing your board is really inspiring!

i don’t have a drawing.  i just laid the gameboard and pieceboxes on a piece of 6x4 board.  then took a pencil and drew their outlines.  i built up from there.

the table has no legs.  its actually sitting on another table.  its more stable that way.

the table looks wide but when you sit along side it, you can see the whole board.  i wanted to make sure i wouldnt have to stand up every time it was my turn.

i’m happy to help anytime i can.  any other questions, feel free to ask or pm me.

can you measues the amo boxes(lxwxh)and the space between the sapcers in the containers

i will, but they are the boxes from the FMG ammo box