Over a year ago, there was a discussion thread somewhere on this forum (I can’t recall in what section) about GTO’s demise. As I recall, GTO was supposedly saying that it was shutting down temporarily and that it would return sometime in the following year with a new game that it would be offering in some kind of partnership with Larry Harris rather than WotC. The details were quite vague, and nothing seems to have come of that initiative…assuming that it was indeed an initiative that had any substance to it, rather than just speculation.
What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?
-
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??!) -
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.
-
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=2Let 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 -
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 thisMy 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
too bad China can’t have AA guns
-
Gamerman, you have some pretty good ideas. My variant is pretty drastic in many ways and will have a really niche following if at all.
@ Varience, good topic! Don’t mean to de-rail your thread. Sorry.
-
too bad China can’t have AA guns
Actually I’m thinking the chits (2?) for flying tigers will work like surprise AA guns that would hit Japanese aircraft.
And it’s not too hard for the UK or USSR to get AA guns into China…
-
Remember that UK Pacific is going to have more income
Yes UK Pac will have more Income. But in your rule UK Pac has less income than UK-Pac + Anzac at the moment, since you’re reducing the value of the Australian territories. And on top of that, the allies won’t get the 5 bonus income from the Anzac NO (Guinea+Solomon+New Britain)
Overall, that’s a reduce in Allied IPC in the pacific.
Japan couldn’t care less, if it has 2 less tacs against China. It has such a huge amount of aircraft. These vast Aircraft numbers are only needed in the war against the US+Anzac navy. For supporting the ground troops in China, only a few planes would suffice.
China will not be able to stack in Szechwan as easily to recapture Yunnan for the Burma road. In fact, since you’re forcing China to spread out with the max-2-infantry-rule, Japan will easily be able to thin out the Chinese infantry even faster. It’s never good for the defender to spread forces.
I still don’t agree with your cruiser assessment.
18 cruisers = 11 battleships in cost.
18 cruiser = 18hp, 54 power.
11 battleships = 22hp, 44 power.So that’s 25% less damage than cruisers, while having ~22% more hp. While the cruisers may do more dmg in the first round, the battleships will do WAY more damage in the following rounds, since you can tip them. Battleships are obviously stronger.
8 cruisers = 11 destroyers in cost.
8 cruisers = 8 hp, 24 power
11 destroyers = 11 hp, 22 powerNow that’s even more obvious. Destroyers have 37.5% more hp while having only 8.3% less power. Additionally they can more easily be used as blockers, cannon fodder and anti-submarine, while cruisers only have bombard (rarely used, and even more rarely needed).
No one who gets his math straight will be buying cruisers, even with a reduced cost of 11.
-
What would happen is, that Japan rushes through China faster with your rule, conquering most of it before USA can enter the war.
Additionally the Japanese fleet will position itself somewhere in the near of Philippines, FIC or whatever, forcing UK PAC to decide what to defend. This makes Japan’s life even easier, since it can and will attack the weak spot -> probably being India, since you’re reducing the factory there to a minor (why would you do that anyway? I’ve not seen anyone so far, who has a problem with that major).
And since Anzac is no playable power anymore, you’re additionally eliminating the option of another block-clearer. At the moment, USAAND UK can clear destroyers blocks for anzac landings.
Most of your propositions are reasonable, in a historic context. I understand and agree with the reasons you’re stating (flying tigers, chinese revolution etc), to all of the changes. However, you’re not compensating them nearly enough. At the moment the Axis have an advantage and you are even expanding that advantage.
There have to be some historic inaccuracies sometimes due to game balances.