What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?

@Karl7:

I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

That’s what I’m talking about

@variance:

Would Sydney count as a world capitol?

No way.  Not a major world capital in WWII

We’re talking Moscow, London, Washington, San Francisco

Funny how much the original game keeps coming back to mind with G40 issues.  Axis had to take 2 Allied capitals to win in the original, IIRC

I think this game would play better and more fun if it was the old school victory conditions from the original.  Either side has to take 2 major capitals to win (while losing no more than 1 major capital of your own?)
I just know it’s a cheese factory that the Axis win the game if Japan gets 6 cities for a single round, when 4 are pretty much automatic and the other 2 are, well, a lot less than major world power centers.

Axis are 310-244 in the A&A.org 2013 league

This is with bids to the Allies averaging 6-12

It is obvious that the VC conditions are too friendly to the Axis.  I find it interesting that people on this thread are saying they are worried that changes could make it harder for the Axis to win.
It NEEDS to be harder for the Axis to win.

And so I add this to the list of what’s the cheesiest thing about Global 1940.

It’s that the Axis win 56% of the games, enabled by the threat that Japan could pick up 2 Pacific cities and win the game.

I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?

having 2 separate victory conditions for the axis is one of the best concepts in this game.

sure, historically it does not make sense. but this offers a great gaming experience with fighting all over the board.

it also allows for the very fun aspect of the axis losing economically(a long term game will be an allied victory) but having a shot at going all in for a victory city win on one side. i know the most fun games i have had(it does not matter if i am axis or allies) is where the axis will lose a long term game and make a big push for the victory city win and both sides know that the game is coming to an exciting conclusion.

if you are a proponent of removing the victory conditions what would you suggest to encourage the allies to fight in both europe and pacific?

I think the same thing can be accomplished another way.
I would start by taking a hard look at NO’s in the Pacific.
See my spreadsheet of ideas for new and changed rules for a starter…  I propose an NO for Japan for Carolines, Midway, Wake, and Guam (instead of the wacky one that Larry has that Japan never gets close to getting, which includes the Solomons and that British one.  What in the world??!)

@Degrasse:

I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?

No, not tracking bid amounts.  There hasn’t been much variance in the bidding, really.

80/70 (60/50 and 40/30) is a HUGE difference, actually.  If the game was balanced these numbers would not be different.

80/70 means tier 1 players are LOSING 50% more often with the Allies than the Axis.  They are winning 8/10 with Axis, but only 7/10 with Allies.  That is a huge difference.

@allweneedislove:

if you are a proponent of removing the victory conditions what would you suggest to encourage the allies to fight in both europe and pacific?

That’s an interesting thought.  In a way, the general idea of finding a way to encourage the Allies to fight both in Europe and the Pacific would be a bit like the Combined Arms unit-pairing rules, in which a mix of unit types activates enhanced unit abilities.  The Allies would need some kind of multiplier effect (either military or economic) as an incentive to fight in both theatres.  I don’t know how it could be done, but it’s an intriguing concept for a house rule.

Historically, once the US, the UK, the USSR, Germany and Japan were all at war, the basic strategy of the Allies was supposed to be “Hitler first”.  The Allies did, in one sense, stick to that strategy, but the plan got diluted to some extent by the sheer size and diversity of America’s production of war materials.  US industry cranked out vast quantities of land-based weapons and aircraft (which could be used in both theatres), but it also cranked out vast numbers of warships, which arguably were far more useful for fighting the primarily oceanic war in the Pacific than the primarily land-based war in Europe.  The European war did require sea power, but this was primarily in the form of transport ships, escort vessels, a few shore-bombardment vessels, and lots of landing craft / amphibious assault ships.  The top-of-the line combat vessels – the fleet carriers and the fast battleships – were arguably “in excess of requirements” in Europe but were vitally important in the Pacific, so the US could commit them against Japan without greatly hindering the overall “Hitler first” strategy.  This is also true for the US submarine forces: there wasn’t much work for them to do in the Atlantic or in the Mediterranean, but they could (and did) wreak economic havoc on Japan by attacking its vital (and surprisingly ill-defended) convoy routes.

It’s been stated elsewhere and generally defeated by opinion, but changes in naval prices to match the cost of land units would enable a better simulation of the PTO and the Italian and British navies.

A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.

Aircraft become more valuable and more in line with thier historical roles.

I don’t propose that naval structure be  changed in future editions. But I do think a house rule or variant would make for a very entertaining game.

Actually, I am developing a house rule game of G40 for the league now, and it includes some lower naval costs (although slight), like transports down to 6

You can see my work in progress here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2

Let me know what you think - it’s intended to be a group effort to improve the game.
This thread kind of pushed me over the threshhold for doing this

More in line with OP are the entry rules for nations not at war. I understand the historical setting but the player is taking on the role of a national leader in an alternative setting. I don’t see why Russia or the US couldn’t declare war on thier first turn if they wanted to.  The US supplied the allies from start as well as sanctioned Japan for its war with China.  Roosevelt was eager to go to war so if we’re playing a game of “what-if?” Why not allow the powers not at war early entry?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that too.
Great addition to the thread - the DOW rules are indeed cheesy at times

@Gamerman01:

Let me know what you think - it’s intended to be a group effort to improve the game.
This thread kind of pushed me over the threshhold for doing this

My first thought: The cruiser will still be the weakest naval unit. Reduce the cost to 10.

And so far these changes seem to favor the Axis even more. All Anzac units+territories become British, okay cool, that’s a buff. But reducing the income of the australian territories and the major industry in india weakens UK PAC a lot. That, in addition to that weird China rule, will make life in pacific even harder. How is China supposed to even remotely defend itself now? Recapturing Yunnan for the Burma road becomes even more difficult.

Thanks for the feedback

The China rule is intended to slow the ridiculously rapid comeback that China can make when Japan fails to subdue her.
Remember that UK Pacific is going to have more income that may be spent, all in India if desired (I’m thinking a major is too much, but a single minor is not enough.  I don’t want to put a minor in Malaya, obviously, so am thinking about West India)

I am taking a couple tacs away from Japan, which helps China.  I could take out another fighter or two if need be.

@MrRoboto:

My first thought: The cruiser will still be the weakest naval unit. Reduce the cost to 10.

I agree with reducing naval costs.  I already had reduced cruiser cost to 11.

The cruiser is NOT the weakest naval unit.  Perhaps you meant least bang for the buck.  I hesitate to reduce it to 10, but agree with reducing it to 11 for sure

Variance, I don’t want to hijack your thread.  I would also like to see more players weigh in with what they think is the cheesiest thing about Global 1940 and don’t want to clog things up here with my project.

To comment on my house ruled game that I am starting to develop, please visit the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in the League section - thanks.

@MrRoboto:

That, in addition to that weird China rule, will make life in pacific even harder. How is China supposed to even remotely defend itself now?

You have a point.  But it’s very easily solveable.  We can take away an infantry or 2 from Japan.

Japan has 8 ground units in Kiangsi and Kwangsi.
Russia has 7 ground units in 3 territories along the Russian front.
Again, I think there is some slight imbalance between the E40 and P40 games, with P40 having more units.

I don’t think the China rule placement restriction is weird.  In AA50 you couldn’t place ANY units in a territory that already had 2-3 Chinese infantry in it.  This rule of placing no more than 2 infantry in a territory at once is very attractive, I think.

Remember the rule book points out that China is in civil war.  So they should not be able to coordinate attacks and build up so easily.  I’m not even sure I’m in favor of the “flying tigers”.  That’s some serious cheese right there, isn’t it?

According to Wikipedia, the flying tigers were active from 12/20/41 to 7/14/42.  So they shouldn’t even exist at start up.  Furthermore, if there is a Chinese fighter representing the “flying tigers” they shouldn’t be able to support ground attacks of Chinese infantry.  A quick review in wikipedia reveals that the tigers were extremely successful in their campaign against Japanese aircraft.  How often does the Chinese fighter in G40 destroy a Japanese plane?  Almost never.  The flying tigers helped defend and shoot down bombers that were doing SBR’s.  So it makes more sense that the flying tigers would enter the game in round 2 or 3 or something and sit in India, defending against SBR’s as an interceptor.  So instead of a fighter piece, perhaps the Allies should have a piece similar to kamikazes that can be used against Japanese air attacks in China and South Asia and that would represent the flying tigers.

Yes, I like this idea a lot, because it is not only much more historically accurate and less cheesy, but it gives the Allies something comparable to the kamikazes.