Do people still play global?

I think the argument you made applies to any A&A game.  Any game can get stratified and boring……until strategic innovators find a way to make it interesting again.

It seems reasonable to assume that Global’s historic faithfulness and tight VC conditions mean there are only a certain number of viable strats and outcomes, and that eventually the game will get stale.

However I find that the Pacific front in particular is extremely rich and there are lots of strategic avenues that have not been fully explored.  So I think we’re still a long way from ‘stale’.

One problem with Global is Allied players rarely bid high enough…so Axis often has the advantage all the way through.  But this is identical to what was happening when AA50 came out…eventually people find the right bid and the game gets more competitive.

here’s a file of a fun recent game where Europe Axis pulled off the win but Japan got badly beaten up by USA…  what to conclude… well I need to work on my late-game Japan play!  And Allies might need even more than a 20 bid to compete in a low luck match.

epic12rounder_europeaxiswins.tsvg

Sorry to bother but what is a bid ? and what is this tigerman’s 1939 Global game?
Thanks :)

Some people think the game(and others) are so biased towards the Axis they will only play the Allies if they are given help in the form of more units. The units are bought using the money that the bid, or auction, ends at. Some people will only play the Allies if they are given 20 IPCs to spend for example. Some bid up, others bid down.
It stops everyone wanting to play the Axis, which is more fun because of the initial attacking and euphoria of territorial gains and makes the Allies a more interesting side to play.
The 1939 game starts in 1939 and is much more complex and takes far more time to play. It had been designed by people here, not by Larry Harris, the designer of A&A.
I do not own it, but would love to.

Cow, perhaps you’ve got your comfortable scripted moves down that you’ve become bored replaying the same scripts over and over?

I’m not saying your scripts are not effective, but part of the game is likely learning the strategies then applying them.  At some point, we as gamers, find ways to break the game or find ways to make winning as consistent as possible.  Once that happens, we get bored - it happens to me almost all the time in NCAA football unless I play an opponent I’ve never played before.

Maybe its time to take a step back for a break as it obviously sounds like you’ve got the “I’ve figured it out, played it enough and now I’m burnt out” syndrome min/max gamers run into.

I’m playing a game where there are 3 sides, no national objectives. USA UK ANZAC vs Russia China Japan vs Germany Italy France.

UK is losing territories left right and center. Germany and Italy gets set back quite a bit by not having any NO’s but the starting advantage of more troops and France helping start to balance it out. India has no chance to survive against the combined Chinese and Japanese forces, Unless USA helps out fast.

I gave china the ability to make any units, also gave it a major factory in Kiangsu and a minor in Manchuria also made its capital Shanghai. setup is current 1940.2. Gave each side a combined bid of 50 IPC to spend as they please. No more than 2 units per territory added facilities included. Neutrals are invadable with no repercussions.

Turn order we played rock paper scissors to decided who went first. each side moves all forces at same time. I’m playing Germany, Italy, and France and i won so i went first. Then USA, UK, ANZAC went second.

Each country controls their own IPC amount and troop production. So Germany Italy and France move at the same time, but they still have to build in their own industrial complexes.

Cow, I’m not sure why you changed your first post so thoroughly. It’s probably 95% changed from the post that you started the thread with. Why not just post a comment in line with everybody else’s comments so that everybody can see what the rest of us were responding to?

I was going to suggest that maybe your dislike for G40 and the way that you become quickly bored with a game that doesn’t move fast enough for you might have to do with your insistence on live games. If you played via forum you might be more willing to get involved in games that took longer to develop and you wouldn’t feel the need to play the same way every time, play only the ultra-aggressive style, and criticize everybody who doesn’t.

To answer your original question, which seems to have disappeared, it seems you are in the minority – the 2300+ and counting page views on the new thread for G40.2 FAQ seem to suggest that other people have plenty of interest in Global.

Sorry, 3200+ page views and counting. My bad.

@wittmann:

Some people think the game(and others) are so biased towards the Axis they will only play the Allies if they are given help in the form of more units. The units are bought using the money that the bid, or auction, ends at. Some people will only play the Allies if they are given 20 IPCs to spend for example. Some bid up, others bid down.
It stops everyone wanting to play the Axis, which is more fun because of the initial attacking and euphoria of territorial gains and makes the Allies a more interesting side to play.
The 1939 game starts in 1939 and is much more complex and takes far more time to play. It had been designed by people here, not by Larry Harris, the designer of A&A.
I do not own it, but would love to.

Oh ok, thanks… But let’ s say we start the game with a bid of 10 ICP for the allies. Does this mean 10 ICP for every Allied Nation?

The final bid is shared amongst them. Not each.
Tends to be UK naval units or sometimes a Fighter in Global.
Earlier games was Russian Inf or UK navy, often for the Med.

I played a global game this last weekend, we had a blast, and i took a ton of pictures of the board during the match. Took us 11 hours, 9 turns, and i won as the axis.

We played with no bids and no tech. Axis felt a little too strong, as usual.

So yes, people still play global :-D

Another possibility, if you don’t like bids, is to allow some units to be moved before play begins.  Maybe each player rolls one die to determine how many units he can move (1 turn’s movement allowance - not a combat move - just repositioning) after the board is set up, but before play begins.

I never get bored playing A&A Global, because I only play 3 table games per month, and I never play online. Excitement for any A&A version can get saturated if you’ve got 4 click and go games going at once.

I used to love poker, but I killed that passion by playing way to much online…. With A&A, I prefer rolling dice with my own hand, and interacting with different people face to face… That’s what keeps this game fun in my opinion.

Axis and Allies burns you out. It’s a very interesting game and so ANY version of the game is AWSM! When it’s new, then after you grasp the best strategies it gets boring.

Global is so huge that the process took longer, but it’s still getting boring to me as well. I usually stop playing it for few months then I get back into it.

I enjoy more tabletop games like Twilight Imperium (Although I’d change few things)

I play every weekend on the table top when we get bored with the latest Alpha we’ll change it up and do any one of the different versions,  original OOB from the first release to Oztea’s 41 set up, theres also games like fortress America….or the old classic. I dont think I’ll ever get bored with the games.