Is Global really more than just Europe and Pacifc played simul

Yes, but I think you would notice the difference more playing as Allies than Axis.  US in particular is making choices each round about where to commit units and how effort each theater really needs.

UK and Japan are both challenging to play effectively in global.  Are you finding that one side or the other is conceding at the end of round 3 because they have messed up that side’s strategy?  UK is challenging to evenly keep pressure going on several fronts while Japan is challenging to envision several moves ahead where the transports need to be, with what load, and what fleet should be escorting them.  Losing transports as Japan is a sign that you have done something wrong.

Well in reality it was two different wars.
Japan never really had a chance to charge through siberia and lay siege to moscow.

What really made the war global is that economically, the western allies had to deal with two very distant conflicts, against very different and determined opponents.

Thankfully, AA40 allows for the historical alternatives, such as charging to moscow with japanese tanks, which they could have tried, but even in the game, it is a bad strategy.
Fighting over all those 1 IPC territories isn’t as productive as fighting over those big money islands in the south, and economics is what wins games of AA.

You might have misread the rules, since that is supposed to be the case already- you only need an Axis victory to win on one board to take the whole game.  I wouldn’t take that to mean that Japan should just stay holed up in Tokyo, however, since the combined maps mean that the Russian and US players have more units and income than they do in either game separately, so Germany is going to have a hard time of it if this all comes into play on the Europe map only.

Outside of Sea Lion, I don’t see why either side would be throwing up the white flag after round 3 unless someone is making blatantly silly moves…

Global is more interesting because the US has to address two theaters.  I believe outside of possibly Moscow (technically), they are the only entity that collects IPC and has to address both the Pacific and Europe.

The only thing I sometimes dread is the massive amount of time it can take to play a game until the obvious winner has been decided.  Early on it took us 12 hours to play, as I’ve continued to play it ends up taking in the 5-7 hour range before we have a pretty clear picture on who’s going to win.

The hardest part for me now is going back to “simpler” and less dynamic strategies of other versions of AA

Yea you guys shouldn’t be quitting on rd 3.  The game should just be getting started.  You could do europe or pac 40 if you want a shorter game or AA50.  Like others have said the real challenge is the US . If you want to put pressure on the russians with japan your best bet is to send bombers.
It’s worth the time investment. Playing on triple A speeds things considerably. If it’s ftf one should plan on a three day weekend.

It can be two separate games going on at the same time from an axis perspective.

From an allies perspective it is one game. When you get the upper hand in Europe or the Pacific then you address the faults in the other half. The allies have to balance maintaining or getting an income advantage and stopping the axis from obtaining a VC win.

Usually the axis win in these team games, because the allies are so interdependent on each other.

@Cow:

It can be two separate games going on at the same time from an axis perspective.

From an allies perspective it is one game. When you get the upper hand in Europe or the Pacific then you address the faults in the other half. The allies have to balance maintaining or getting an income advantage and stopping the axis from obtaining a VC win.

Usually the axis win in these team games, because the allies are so interdependent on each other.

To add to Cow’s statements:

That interdependency requires mutual strategy, which requires discussion and agreement on a strategy - that takes up a significant amount of time in comparison to one person pulling all the strings for each side.

As an aside, I’ve found it much harder to run the Allies solo because I have to make so many decisions in succession whereas the Axis player gets more time to plan and execute strategies between their turns.

I concur with said statement.

If I do separate the allies. Russia, Anzac, and France is one player. USA and UK and China is another (this is for forum team play). If it is a live game… switch anzac and china… that way no one does nothing for too long.

Depending on how “into” the game we get, I’ve had teams go outside to smoke, or into other rooms just to discuss strategy.  Sometimes, this is a good 10 minute discussion before they return to the board.

If this keeps happening after each country goes, I generally propose that you get 10 minutes between rounds to discuss with your allies strategy for the upcoming round - but that no table talk is allowed during the round between allies.

Ends up being a pretty fair rule to keep the game moving, as after a single round someone most definitely needs a drink, to use the bathroom or to grab a smoke - which allows the 10 minute window to become more feasible.

I personally dislike the splitting of the axis victory condition in pacific and europe part. This is what really makes the game feel like 2 seperate games played simultaneously.
Just go back to the original rules (Victroy cities over the whole globe) and bid for victroycities to determine the axis player.

noone is stopping you from housruling that cenator01

Each to their own opinion.

@cenator01:

I personally dislike the splitting of the axis victory condition in pacific and europe part. This is what really makes the game feel like 2 seperate games played simultaneously.
Just go back to the original rules (Victroy cities over the whole globe) and bid for victroycities to determine the axis player.

The reason they changed the Axis victory conditions was that a lot of people were saying it was impossible for the Axis to win if they had to get 14 VCs over the whole board. Usually, if Germany/Italy are doing well, Japan is getting stomped. If Japan is doing well, then Italy is probably taken out and Germany getting squeezed.
I will say that splitting the victory conditions; EITHER 8 VCs on the Europe board OR 6 VCs on the Pacific board, does seem to make it almost too much easier for the Axis to win in some cases. If Japan can simply hold out against the Allies long enough, odds are they will still have Tokyo and Germany/Italy will win in Europe. Or if the Allies go all out after Germany, it’s very likely that Japan will pull it off in the Pacific before Berlin falls.
The thing is, I don’t see how you could find some sort of middle ground here. I think overall this is the best solution, but to each his own.

meh, bidding VCs for global is a way to do it. you might have noticed that if the axis have 13 VCs, they must have won on one of the maps.

you could play to 12, global,
you could play to 12 global, but you have no win if you have 7 in europe and 5 in pacific.
could also play to 13

all of these are easier than 14, and harder than the current (maybe not 12 global is harder, but I think it probably is)

I think, that’s the way to go.
11 or less victory cities is too easy for the axis.
12 victory cities for less experienced axis players (7VC on europe and 5 on the pacific side seems like the allies are loosing on both sides. Only 1 victory city to go for eiter a european or pacific win).
13 victory cities for experienced axis players (Win on one side of the board but don’t loose the other)
14 victory cities seems to be too difficult, but if you want a challenge as the axis, or if you really, really want to play the axis

Keep it global, even for the axis. (My personal opinion.)